i 


iiili: 


iii  HI  I; 


! 


::M 


1  -' 
i^iil!jljii;^:ilip;l!i;':!!!''^:-■^  '-  '  '  ,i 


!l!l!!!i!ll 
ili!!ii!i!!ii|l!''l:!!!i!il 


lililLlLllLu. 


Stom  f^e  fcifiratj?  of 

(jBequeat^e^  6l?  ^im  to 
t^e  feifirari^  of 

(prtnceton  ^^eofogicaf  ^emtnctrj 


BS  1235  .D38  1874 

Davies,  Thomas  Alfred, 

1809 

1899. 

Genesis  disclosed 

Genesis  Disclosed 


The  Discovery  of  a  Stupendous  Error  which 

CHANGES    THE   EnTIRE   JSTaTURE    OF   THE   AC- 
COUNT of  the  Creation  of  Mankind. 

ALSO    SHOWING 

A  DIVINE  LAW,  PLAINLY  LAID  DOWN,  PEOVINa  THE 

EEROE  THAT  ALL  MEN  HAVE  DESCENDED  EEOM 

ADAM  AND  EVE. 


BY  y 
THOMAS  A.  DAYIES, 

Author  of 

Cosmogont;   ob,  Mysteries  op  Creation:   being  ax  Analysis  op 

Natural  facts,  Stated  in  the  Hebraic  Account  of  Creation, 

Supported  by  the  Development  of  Existing  Acts  op 

God  toward  Matter.    Answer  to  Hugh  Miller,  &c. 


NEW    YORK: 
G.    TV,    Carlejon    &   Co.,    PuUishers. 

LONDON:    S.   LOW,    SON   &  CO. 
M.DCCC.LSXIV. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874.  by 

G.    W.   CARLETON   &   CO., 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


Stcreot'\T)ed  at  the 

women's     printing      house, 

56,  58  and  60  Park  Street, 

New  York. 


c  b  i  r  a  1  c  ir 


The    ^vef^    Living    God, 


VINDICATION 


Word.  Command,  and  Law 


REPRODUCTION    "AFTER    HIS    KIND." 


i  Gen.  i.  24.    And  god  said.  Let  the  Earth  bring  forth  the  Living 

}  Creature  after  his  kind,  &c. 


COI>3"TElSrT8. 


PAGE 

Preface 9 

Address  to  Readers 11 

Introduction 23 

Postulates  to  be  proven  .        -        .        .        -        36 

First  Postulate -     39 

Second  Postulate    -         - 59 

Third  Postulate -    84 

Fourth  Postulate  - 104 

Fifth  Postulate -     123 

The  Stupendous  Error  -        -        -        -        -        139 

Eliminations  and  Substitutions         .        -        -        .     147 
Conclusion  and  Verification  -        -        -        -        150 

Result       -        .        -        - 173 

Eliminations  Restored  -        -        -        -        -        181 

How  the  Bible  has  come  to  us  -        -        -        -199 


PREFACE 


The  Christian  world  have  ever  been  in 
search  for  the  pure  word  of  God,  and  we  have 
all  supposed  that  it  was  contained  in  the 
Bible  now  in  common  use.  The  discoveries 
set  forth  in  this  work,  however,  will  clearly 
show  the  following  astounding  facts  :  That 
the  name  of  a  class  of  human  beings  made  in 
the  account  of  the  creation  has  been  elimi- 
nated from  that  account,  although  that  name 
was  specially  given  by  God  Himself.  That 
the  creative  name  given  in  the  same  account 
to  the  man  put  into  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
although  it  occurs  in  the  first  eleven  chap- 
ters of  the  Hebrew  Genesis  thirty  six 
times,  is  not  to  be  found  in  our  Bible  at 

all,  having  been  eliminated  from  the  account 
1* 


10  PEEFACE. 

of  creation  as  well  as  from  the  body  of  the 
Bible.  That  a  very  important  word  has 
also  been  eliminated,  and  another  of  oppo- 
site meaning  substituted,  by  which  the  class 
of  human  beings  above  referred  to  has  been 
left  out  of  the  creative  account,  and  thus 
the  whole  nature  and  meaning  of  the 
Genesis  on  this  subject  changed.  That  by 
similar  eliminations  and  substitutions  the 
flood  has  been  made  universal.  It  will  not 
be  our  object  to  trace  back  and  find  out 
where  these  stupendous  errors  have  arisen, 
but  to  deal  with  them  as  they  stand  in  our 
King  James  Bible,  the  whole  discussion 
being  confined  to  the  misuse  of  two  names 
and  one  word. 


ADDRESS    TO    READERS. 


The  importance  of  tlie  subject  under 
consideration  would  seem  to  call  for  some 
explanation  of  the  reasons  wliicli  have  in- 
duced me,  as  a  private  individual,  to  put 
forth  this  work.  There  are  those  whose 
callinsr  it  is  to  teach  the  word  of  Grod  as 
found  in  our  Bible,  and  persons  who  read 
are  supposed  to  look  to  them  for  expla- 
nations. And  so  it  should  be  with  the 
ordinary  reader,  whose  knowledge  of  the 
subjects  treated  of  cannot  be  as  extensive 
as  those  who  make  them  a  study  and  a 
profession.  It  would  then  seem  presumpt- 
uous, at  first  sight,  for  any  one  to  call  in 
question  the  current  teachings  and  con- 
structions  held   almost  as  a  unit   by   the 


12  ADDRESS    TO    EEADERS. 

divines  of  the  day,  and  also  by  those  of 
former  years. 

But  the  subject  treated  of  here  is  con- 
fined to  such  narrow  limits  that  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  single  point  of  construction 
on  a  single  subject,  running,  of  course, 
through  the  whole  Bible — that  point  is 
the  introduction  of  the  human  family  on 
the  earth,  as  recorded  in  the  Hebrew 
Genesis  of  creation.  Divines  and  commen- 
tators have  regarded  the  Genesis  as  an 
unexplained  portion  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
proclaimed  that  it  contained  mysteries 
which  mig^ht  remain  sealed  to  the  human 
mind  forever.  This  is  a  challenge  for  in- 
vestigation, for  study,  and  for  research,  as 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  Book  writ- 
ten for  our  instruction  was  so  worded  that 
it  could  not  be  understood  by  man,  espe- 
cially  the  historic  portion  of  it. 

About  the  year  1855,  the  encroachments 
of  Geologic  Science  (so   called   u|)on   the 


ADDRESS    TO   EEADER9.  13 

theory  of  tlie  Mosaic  Creation)  were  sucli, 
tliat  the  Christian  mind  of  the  world  Avas 
almost  taken  ofE  its  balance,  and  divines 
from  the  pulpit  began  to  overthrow  the 
Genesis  by  adhering  to  and  admitting  that 
the  days  of  the  Genesis  were  not  days,  but 
extended  periods  of  time  indefinite  in  their 
range,  and  subsequently  preached  Hugh 
Miller  as  the  second  or  only  Moses.  This 
frightful  condition  of  things,  to  my  mind, 
would  eventually  lead  to  the  overthrow  of 
the  Mosaic  account  and  the  Bible,  in  the 
minds  of  a  vast  number  of  persons  who 
took  the  geologist's  assumptions  as  facts, 
and  made  out  a  creation  by  their  mode, 
and  ignored  the  mode  laid  down  in  the 
Mosaic  account. 

On  the  fii^t  announcement  of  these 
geologic  theories,  my  mind  was  drawn  to 
the  investigation  of  the  Mosaic  account  of 
creation,  to  see  how  this  tide  of  unbelief 
could  be  arrested  by  facts  within  the  ac- 


14  ADDEESS   TO   EEADEES. 

count  itself.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  progress  was  slow.  I 
obtained,  however,  a  verified  copy  of  the 
Hebrew,  translated  word  for  word,  and  the 
result  of  the  comparison  between  the  two 
revealed  the  fact  that  the  King  James 
translation  of  the  first  twenty-five  verses  of 
the  first  chapter  has  but  one  error  in 
translation ;  that  was  found  in  the  first 
verse  and  the  second  word  in  our  Bible. 
The  word  "  the  "  "In  the  beginning,"  etc., 
is  interpolated,  and  is  not  found  in  the 
Hebrew.  Nor  did  I  discover  any  other 
errors  in  the  first  chapter,  except  in  the 
26th  and  27th  verses,  which  relate  to  the 
creation  of  mankind.  A  portion  of  these 
errors  run  through  the  first  eleven  or 
twelve  chapters. 

The  result  of  these  fifteen  years  of  study 
and  investiojation  into  the  Genesis  was 
published  in  1857,  under  the  title  of 
CosMoaoNY ;  oe,  The  Mysteeies  of  Ceea- 


ADDEES3   TO    READERS.  15 

TiON  :  heing  an  analysis  of  tlie  natural 
facts  stated  in  the  Hehraic  account  of  tlie 
creation^  supported  hy  the  development  of 
the  existing  acts  of  God  towards  matter. 
I  only  \visli  now  that  I  had  had  at  that 
time  more  experience  in  writing,  that  I 
could  have  di'essed  up  my  ideas  in  a  more 
rhetorical  form,  and  presented  them  more 
acceptably  to  my  readei's.  In  that  work  I 
claimed  that  the  Plebraic  account  of  crea- 
tion was  in  exact  accordance  with  existino* 
natm^al  laws  ;  that  it  was  scientific  beyond 
the  knowledge  of  Moses,  proving  its  inspi- 
ration ;  that  no  other  mode  of  creation 
could  be  assumed  by  which  an  equilibrium 
would  be  maintained ;  that  is,  every  por- 
tion should  bear  upon  and  support  the 
other  as  it  does  now. 

In  that  work,  too,  I  pointed  out  the 
errors  in  translation,  which  bear  upon  and 
support  the  construction  of  the  unity  of 
the   human   family.      Sixteen  years  have 


16  ADDEESS   TO   EEADERS. 

since  rolled  around,  but  I  have  never  been 
able  to  banish  the  subject  from  my  mind, 
nor  cease  my  investigations.  During  that 
time  I  have  sifted  the  subject  till  I  think 
I  have  arrived  at  the  bottom ;  for  to  my 
mind  it  is  now  clear,  and  the  Grenesis  is  no 
longer  a  mystery  on  this  point.  Every 
few  years  I  would  discover  new  points 
and  see  what  I  had  never  seen  before,  and 
every  new  discovery  made  more  clear  the 
preceding  ones. 

I  was  educated  to  the  belief  that  from 
Adam  and  Eve  the  whole  human  family 
had  sprung,  and  that  it  was  so  stated  in 
the  Bible.  I  did  believe  it,  and  should 
have  lived  and  died  in  that  belief,  had  I 
not  accidentally  run  against  the  subject  in 
my  investigations  to  disprove  the  geologic 
theories  of  creation.  At  first  I  was  per- 
plexed because  I  could  find  nothing  in  the 
Bible  that  said  affirmatively  that  we  have 
all  descended  from  one  man  or  one  pair,  or 


ADDEESS   TO    READERS.  17 

from  a  common  parent.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  found  thing's  in  the  Hebrew  that 
confused  the  Enoflish  Bible.  I  worked  on 
and  on,  comparing  and  unfolding  ideas  and 
expressions,  which,  though  I  had  read  them 
time  and  again  for  years  and  years,  finally 
untano^led  themselves  into  a  consistent  elu- 
cidation,  "which  I  shall  relate. 

I  have  strongly  debated  with  myself 
whether  this  Biblical  discovery  should 
reach  the  public  eye  for  the  present.  Be- 
cause the  question  of  the  unity  of  the  race, 
though  still  in  contest  between  men,  is 
the  construction  and  belief  of  most  all 
religious  sects,  and  possibly  should  be  as 
long  as  they  take  the  King  James  transla- 
tion as  their  guide.  Then  there  are  so  few 
who  can  understand  the  difference  between 
an  honest  undertaking^  to  correct  errors  of 
ti'anslation  of  portions  of  the  Bible,  and  an 
infidel  attack  upon  it,  that  very  few  would 
wish   to    breast   this    feeling   in   a   social 


18  ADDEESS    TO    EEADEKS. 

community.  He  has  to  encounter  preju- 
dices, ignorance,  time-worn  education,  set- 
tled belief,  and  the  natural  uprising  of  feel- 
ing in  every  one's  breast,  that  he  has  been 
found  in  error  in  what  he  believes  as  the 
result  of  education  and  his  own  reading. 
As  an  evidence  of  this,  an  old  aunt  of 
mine,  a  good  Christian,  who  read  her  Bible 
regularly  and  usefully,  said,  when  she 
heard  I  had  published  my  Cosmogony, 
"  Why,  you  don't  say  that  Thomas  has 
been  writing  a  book  against  the  Bible  ! " 

This  is  as  near  as  the  majority  of  people 
can  judge  of  any  such  effort ;  and  therefore 
the  putting  forth  of  such  a  work  as  this  is 
by  no  means  a  pleasant  undertaking,  even 
though  every  word  in  it  is  true.  The 
following  are  the  reasons  which  impel  me 
to  it :  The  Genesis  was  written  by  Moses 
in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  every  word 
is  the  inalienable  property  of  every  human 
being  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  and 


ADDRESS   TO   EEADEES.  19 

hence  is  my  inalienable  property.  Whoever 
has  taken  away  one  word  of  this  treasure  by 
a  misstated  translation,  has  infringed  those 
rights  and  mine,  and  has  given  the  world  a 
Bible  made  by  men,  and  not  the  Bible 
made  by  God.  This  remark  may  be 
sweeping  and  severe,  and  needs  explana- 
tion. If  a  word  or  two  or  more  were  mis- 
translated in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  inter- 
fere with  the  general  meaning  or  the  sense, 
it  would  undoubtedly  still  be  the  word  of 
God,  and  should  be  received  as  such. 

But  if  on  an  important  subject,  such  as 
the  introduction  of  mankind  into  the  crea- 
tion, mistranslations  occur  in  verse  after 
verse,  and  chapter  after  chapter,  and  an 
important  word  left  out  from  the  Hebrew, 
and  another  of  entirely  different  meaning 
inserted,  by  which  means  one  principal  act 
of  God  in  creation  is  eliminated  and  set 
aside,  and  the  whole  meaning  changed  on 
this   subject,  the   remark  holds  good.      I 


20  ADDEESS   TO   EEADEES. 

shall  show  this  to  be  so;  and  if  I  do,  no 
one  can  say  aught  but  that  I  am  striving 
for  the  pure  word  of  God,  and  claim  it  as 
my  inalienable  right.  If  I  do  not  do  this, 
I  am  j)repared  to  take  the  consequences, 
socially  and  theologically,  and  the  indigna- 
tion  of  an  offended  God.  To  Him,  on  this 
subject,  I  am  responsible  directly,  and 
measurably  to  my  fellow-men  and  the  Chris- 
tian world. 

I  feel  the  responsibility  of  my  jDosition 
keenly,  but  I  am  impelled  to  it  by  a  sense 
of  duty  which  accident  has  imposed  upon 
me.  Knowing  what  I  do,  and  having 
found  out  what  I  have  by  an  impulse  ever 
worrying  and  working  upon  my  mind,  I 
should  be  guilty  of  a  greater  sin  in  keep- 
ing it  to  myself  and  telling  no  man,  than 
if  I  should  fail  to  do  what  I  have  said  I 
can  do  to  reveal  the  hidden  mysteries  of 
the  Genesis,  so  long  covered  up  to  the 
world.     Furthermore,  I  committed  myself 


ADDRESS   TO   READERS.  21 

in  my  Cosmogony  on  tlie  diversity  of  tlie 
human  family,  having  then  discerned  just 
enough  to  make  the  assertion,  but  not  suf- 
ficient to  prove  beyond  all  peradventure 
the  fact  from  the  Scripture  itself. 

Another  reason  why  I  put  forth  these 
facts  now,  is  this :  No  man  living  is  free 
from  the  possibility  of  a  mistake.  If  I 
should  make  one,  it  will  be  unintentional, 
though  rest  assured  that  every  point  has 
been  weighed,  reviewed,  reweighed,  anal- 
yzed, compared,  and  subjected  to  every 
conceivable  test  of  which  I  am  capable; 
then  laid  aside,  thousrht  over  a2:ain  and 
again,  until  every  point  has  been  worn 
threadbare.  Still  I  may  make  an  anti-Bib- 
lical, that  is,  an  anti-Hebraic,  statement, 
and  if  I  do,  I  will  thank  any  one,  Jew  or 
Gentile,  Rabbi,  Divine,  or  learned  man, 
to  inform  me,  that  I  may  correct  it  at  once. 
With  these  remarks,  I  consign  the  result  of 
my  investigations  to  the  kind  consideration 


22  ADDKESS   TO   EEADEES. 

of  every  one  on  tlie  earth  interested  in  tlie 
word  of  God. 

Your  humble  servant, 

Thomas  A.  Da  vies. 


INTRODUCTION 


Some  readers  on  taking  up  this  work 
will  glance  over  tke  headings,  read  ^  line 
here  and  there,  and  then  probably  close  it 
up,  sayiug  to  themselves,  "This  is  the 
emanation  of  some  infidel  mind  attacking: 
the  Bible.  I  will  not  read  it."  Some  will 
read  it  out  of  curiosity,  as  they  would  a 
novel,  to  see  what  the  author  has  to  say, 
and  how  he  says  it.  Some  will  skim  over 
it  in  order  to  say  that  they  have  seen  it 
and  read  it.  While  there  are  others  who 
will  be  deeply  interested  in  the  subject, 
and  read  attentively  with  unbiassed  minds, 
and  with  a  view  of  getting  at  the  facts 
stated. 

No  one  need  expect  to  understand  the 


24  INTEODUCTION. 

problem  by  a  casual  reading,  unless  the 
author  has  greater  success  than  he  expects 
in  presenting  the  facts  in  a  clear  light, 
for  the  whole  is  a  connected  chain  of  evi- 
dence, one  link  of  which  if  left  out,  its 
unity  is  lost.  Then,  too,  there  is  a  diffi- 
culty in  the  way  of  ready  apprehension. 
It  is  not  like  presenting  a  new  subject 
where  the  reader  is  prepared  to  take  in  an 
idea  because  it  is  new.  One  set  of  ideas 
grounded  in  education  and  belief  are  to  be 
eradicated,  and  a  new  set  of  ideas  substi- 
tuted in  their  stead.  The  reader's  mind 
must  be  prepared  to  receive  facts  because 
they  are  facts,  and  if  he  does  not  find  them 
so,  to  reject  them  altogether. 

We  have  all  been  educated  to  the  belief 
that  the  whole  human  family  have  de- 
scended :from  Adam  and  Eve.  This  idea 
has  been  grounded  in  our  minds  by  educa- 
tion, lisped  in  youth  from  the  catechism, 
and   continued  in  oft-repeated  instruction 


INTEODUCTION.  25 

from  the  pulpit.  While  the  world  Avas 
less  informed  than  it  is  now,  it  was  received 
without  mental  reservation.  Education, 
observation,  and  the  developed  acts  of  God 
in  this  direction,  and  the  persistent  repro- 
duction of  different  kinds  of  peoples,  have 
stimulated  inquiry,  and  serious  doubt  has 
seized  upon  many  minds  whether  this  was 
so,  and  if  not,  where  the  difficulty  lay,  and 
where  it  originated. 

This  doubt  in  the  minds  of  many  has 
resolved  itself  into  open  declarations,  and 
such  declarations  have  been  supported  ])y 
scientific  proofs,  quite  satisfactory  to  many, 
while  others  have  attempted  the  same 
proof  on  Scriptural  grounds,  based  j^artly 
on  the  Hebrew  and  partly  on  the  King 
James  translation ;  so  that  the  contest  be- 
tween the  constructionists  of  the  unity  of 
the  race  and  their  opponents,  has  been 
carried  on  for  years  with  great  sj)irit. 

Work  after  work  and  volume  after  vol- 
2 


26  INTEODUCTIOl^. 

lime  have  appeared,  witli  no  result  except 
to  make  the  discussion  wider  and  more  ani- 
mated. Nor  will  any  effort  in  this  direc- 
tion ever  be  successful,  that  is  not  carried 
on  purely  on  facts  within  the  Bible  itself. 

Here,  then,  must  the  whole  subject  rest 
for  solution,  as  it  is  quite  useless  and  a  loss 
of  time  and  intellect  to  undertake  to  move 
belief  by  any  other  arguments  or  proofs. 
Nor  would  this  work  ever  have  appeared, 
if  the  Hebrew  Genesis  did  not  within  it- 
self contain  a  clear  solution  of  this  long- 
contested  and  vexed  problem.  There  is  a 
current  mode  of  reading  Scripture,  and 
teaching  it  by  individual  opinions,  not 
found  in  the  book  itself,  or  even  supported 
by  anything  that  can  be  found  in  it.  The 
moment  a  teacher  branches  off  from  that 
word,  and  evolves  his  individual  opinions 
which  he  cannot  support  by  Scripture,  he 
is  making  an  oration  to  men,  and  not 
teaching  the  word. 


INTRODUCTIOIS'.  27 

This  remark  is  not  made  to  criticise  any 
one,  but  to  prepare  the  mind  of  the  reader 
to  reject  all  in  this  work  which  may  par- 
take of  individual  opinion,  not  supported 
by  the  Hebrew  Genesis,  and  be  prepared 
to  accept  what  he  will  find  there,  no  mat- 
ter what  open  declarations  may  be  used  by 
others  a^  expressions  of  individual  opinion. 
All  should  remember,  that  if  the  Bible  has 
been  given  to  man  for  his  instruction,  it  is 
his  duty  to  read  it  for  instruction  and 
study,  and  comprehend  its  meaning.  Every 
intelligent  mind  is  responsible  to  his  God 
to  do  this  so  far  as  he  can  understand  it, 
asking  instruction  on  such  portions  as  are 
incomprehensible  to  him. 

Then,  what  must  be  regarded  as  the 
position  which  the  author  takes  in  this  dis- 
cussion ?  Not  as  a  teacher,  for  he  does  not 
pretend  to  teach.  Not  as  a  declaimer  of 
individual  opinions,  for  he  knows  how 
valueless  they  are  upon  this  subject.     Not 


28  INTRODUCTIOlf. 

an  antagonist  to  tlie  word  of  God,  for  that 
is  liis  present  effort  to  point  out  and  sup- 
port. Not  to  advance  new  and  startling 
theories  for  fame  and  renown,  for  the  sub- 
stance of  this  work  is  as  old  as  the  world 
itself.  Not  to  complain  of  any  one  for  his 
belief,  or  of  any  teacher  for  his  teachings, 
for  the  author  has  been  with  theni,  and  of 
them.  But  having  discovered  in  the  word 
what  he  thinks  will  go  far  to  end  the  con- 
troversy of  the  unity  of  the  race,  he  now 
proposes  to  show  what  has  been  left  be- 
hind in  the  passage  of  the  Genesis  from  the 
Hebrew  to  the  English  language. 

This  brings  the  author  in  controversy  with 
men  about  the  accuracy  of  their  acts,  and 
not  in  controversy  with  God  and  His  acts, 
or  the  record  of  them.  It  is  a  controversy 
about  the  mechanical  accuracy  with  which 
men  entrusted  with  transposing  the  acts  of 
God  from  the  Hebrew  language  into  the 
English  language,  have  acccomplished  their 


criEOBu.CTioN.  29 

mission.  If  tliey  have  not  transposed 
accurately,  tliey  have  not  injured  tlie  word 
of  God,  but  have  simjDly  failed  to  get  the 
word  in  the  new  language.  Though  they 
may  through  error  have  done  what  has 
produced  immense  controversy,  not  one  jot 
or  tittle  of  God's  word  has  been  lost  to  the 
world,  though  it  may  have  been  suspended 
for  a  time. 

The  questions  to  be  decided  in  this  work 
are  simple  questions  of  fact :  whether  the 
King  James  translation  is  so  faithfully 
done  as  to  give  the  reader  the  same  ideas  as 
are  contained  in  the  Hebrew  Genesis  on  the 
subject  of  the  introduction  of  mankind  in 
the  creation,  and  the  relative  position  of  the 
man  and  woman  placed  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden  to  that  creation.  There  is  no  Chris- 
tian Avho  should  not  be  deeply  interested  in 
these  facts,  whatever  may  be  his  particular 
creed,  or  however  limited  may  be  his  knowl- 


80  INTEODUCTION". 

edge   of  the  record  in  the  one  or  in  tlie 
other  language. 

A  fact  worthy  of  note  in  this  place  may 
be  stated  as  a  proof  that  the  author  has 
good  reasons  for  believing,  besides  his  own 
knowledge,  that  the  positions  that  will  be 
taken  in  this  work  as  to  these  incorrect 
transpositions  are  true  and  cannot  be  con- 
troverted, is  that  sixteen  years  ago  he  put 
forth  his  Cosmogony,  and  although  this  sub- 
ject was  not  made  a  principal  one,  it  was 
referred  to,  and  the  mistranslations  were 
pointed  out.  The  subject  being  compara- 
tively new  to  him  at  that  time,  he  was  not 
over-confident,  and  he  sent  the  work  broad- 
cast, giving  it  to  Divines,  Jew  Rabbis, 
Hebrew  scholars,  and  learned  men,  with  the 
urgent  request  to  early  inform  him  of  any 
error  the  book  contained  in  this  resjDect. 
Many  took  it  with  the  ]3romise  that  they 
would  do  so.  No  man  has  ever  answered 
to  tills  day^  pointing  out  an  error. 


INTRODUCTION.  3 1 

The  following  propositions,  it  is  believed, 
will  be  shown  conclusively  * 

First  That  the  Hebrew  name  AoA^ii  in 
Genesis  i.  26,  was  a  name  given  by  God 
Himself  to  a  class,  and  should  have  been 
retained  in  its  place  in  the  translation. 
Instead  of  which  the  term  man  is  used, 
which  has  many  and  various  meanings. 

Second.  That  the  Hebrew  term  Ha-Ada:m 
or  The  Adam,  in  Genesis  i.  27,  denoted  and 
stood  for  the  individual  placed  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  and  instead  of  retaining 
his  name  in  that  important  place,  it  has 
been  changed  by  the  translators  to  man. 

Third.  That  the  Hebrew  term  Ha- Ad  am 
or  The  Adam  being  a  proper  name  for  an 
individual,  and  sometimes  called  Adam 
without  the  article,  is  variously  translated 
or  transformed  to  the  man^  man.,  and  men., 
in  succeeding  chapters  of  the  Genesis. 

Fourth.  That  the  act  of  making  Ada>[ 
the  class  in  the  Genesis  i.  26,  was  an  inde- 


32  INTRODUCTION. 

pendent  act  of  God  in  the  creation,  and' 
has  no  necessary  connection  with  the  suc- 
ceeding act  of  creating  recorded  in  Genesis 
i.  27. 

Fifth.  That  the  translators  have  dropped 
the  very  important  word  And  altogether 
which  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Hebrew  Genesis  i.  27,  and  substituted  the 
word  So  in  its  stead,  thereby  changing  the 
relation  between  the  26th  and  27th  verses 
of  Genesis. 

Sixth,  That  by  dropping  the  word  And, 
and  substituting  the  word  So  in  its  stead, 
the  principal  act  of  God  in  the  creation, 
recorded  in  the  Genesis  i.  26,  is  eliminated 
and  set  aside,  making  this  act  in  this  verse 
a  declaration  or  a  peroration  of  what  was 
to  be  done  in  the  27th  verse. 

Seventh.  That  by  these  transformations, 
eliminations,  and  substitutions  the  whole 
sense  of  the  Genesis,  on  the  subject  of  the 
introduction   of   mankind   in  the  creation. 


UTTEODUCTION.  33 

has  been   cliano:ed   and   mutilated   almost 
beyond  recognition. 

Eujlitlh.  That  the  Law  of  keproductiox 
which  reo;ulates  and  verifies  the  Hebrew 
Genesis  on  this  subject,  being  among  the 
first  and  most  important  emanating  from 
God,  has,  as  far  as  the  knowledge  of  the 
author  extends,  been  entirely  ignored,  or 
at  least  has  remained  unnoticed. 

Eeo:ardino^  the  time  at  which  the  Kino; 
James  translation  was  made,  and  the  set- 
tled views  as  to  the  origin  of  mankind  then- 
prevalent,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  trans- 
lators allowed  change  of  words  and  interpo- 
lation of  others  to  make  it  conform  to  what 
they  conceived  it  should  be.  The  subject 
in  the  Hebrew  partakes  very  much  of  the 
character  of  a  mathematical  problem, 
where  terms  are  used  the  definitions  for 
which  are  found  remote  from  where  they 
are  used.     Substitutions  of  these  meanings 

solve  the  equations,  whereas,  if  these  are 
2* 


34  INTKODUCTIO]Sr. 

not  observed  and  not   made,  tlie  problem 
remains  unsolved. 

The  subject  at  best  is  a  perplexing  one, 
without  a  key ;  with  that,  all  is  plain.  No 
one  will  attribute  to  the  translators  any 
other  motive  than  to  harmonize  the  Bible 
as  a  whole  from  their  stand-point  of 
knowleds-e  and  construction.  The  con- 
struction  of  the  unity  of  the  race  conse- 
quent upon  this  translation  is  a  great 
drawback,  and  to  many  a  bar  to  belief,  in 
the  Bible,  they  being  ignorant  of  any 
change  from  the  original  word,  so  decided 
as  to  alter  the  whole  meaning  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

It  may  be  asked,  and  very  properly, 
what  effect  will  all  this  have  upon  the 
Bible  and  Christianity?  The  effect  upon 
the  Bible  would  be  to  make  it  agree  with 
the  acts  of  God  in  the  reproduction  of 
mankind  as  far  as  history  records,  and 
relieve  it   from   apparent    antagonism   to 


INTRODUCTIOISr.  35 

these  acts  wliere  no  proof  exists.  Errors 
of  construction  or  of  teaching  are  mere 
frictions  upon  the  great  balance-wlieel  of 
Christianity,  and  the  sooner  corrected  the 
more  accelerated  will  be  its  motion  and  the 
more  j^owerful  will  be  its  action.  But 
there  is  still  a  more  important  question  to 
be  asked,  and  that  is,  Is  this  the  word  of 
God? 


POSTULATES  TO  BE.PROYEN. 


FIEST  POSTULATE. 

That  the  Hebrew  Genesis,  as  well  as  our  pres- 
ent English-  Bible,  records  a  Divine  Law  of  re- 
production for  the  vegetable  and  animal  king- 
doms, and  for  mankind,  by  which  law,  and  in 
accordance  with  it,  each  separate  kind  of  men 
and  women  now  persistently  reproduced,  have 
been  so  reproduced  after  his  hind  since  the  day 
of  creation. 

seco:n'd  postulate. 

That  the  Hebrew  Genesis  records  the  making 
or  creating  of  two  Adams.  The  one  named  by 
God  Himself,  and  that  name  explained  by  Moses 
as  standing  for  a  class  m.ale  and  female  man  in 
the  day  of   creation.     The  other,  the   name   of 


POSTULATES   TO    BE   PKOVEN.  37 

the  individual  man  placed  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  and  in  the  Hebrew  Genesis  most  generally 
called  IIa-Ada^i,  or  TnE  Adam,  and  sometimes 
called  Adam  ^Yitll0^t  the  article  prefixed. 

TniED    POSTULATE. 

Tliat  Adam,  named  by  God  and  standing  in  the 
Hebrew  Genesis  i.  26  for  a  class  male  and  fe- 
male man,  was  the  embodiment  of  the  males  and 
females  who  were  tlie  heads  of  reproduction  of 
the  various  kinds  of  men  and  women  now  found 
on  the  earth,  except  the  Hebrews,  and  reproduced 
ever  since  in  accordance  with  and  carrying  for- 
ward God's  woi'd,  command,  and  law  of  repro- 
duction after  his  kind. 

rOUETH    POSTULATE. 

That  the  Genesis  i.  27  is  devoted  exclusively 
to  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the  lieads  of  the 
Hebrew  kind.  That  Ha-Adam,  or  The  Ada^i, 
was  a  male,  created  and  placed  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden  with  Eve,  his  wife.  That  there  were  other 
male  and  female  Hebrews  created  as  recorded  in 


38  POSTULATES    TO   BE   PEOVEN. 

the  same,  verse.  That  Noah  and  his  family  be- 
came the  second  heads  of  the  Adam  and  Eve 
line  of  reproduction  after  the  flood. 

FIFTH  POSTULATE. 

That  the  Hebrew  Genesis  records  the  destruc- 
tion by  flood  of  the  generations  of  Adam  and 
Eve,  except  Noah  and  his  family,  but  nothing 
more  of  the  human  creation. 

ACKNOWLEDGED  POSTULATE. 

That  there  is  not  one  word  in  the  Bible  that 
declares  in  terms  that  all  men  and  women  have 
descended  from  one  man^  or  one  jpair^  or  are  of 
common  parentage. 


FIRST  POSTULATE. 

That  tlie  Hebrew  Genesis,  as  wefl  as  our  present  English 
Bible,  records  a  Divine  law  of  reproduction  for 
.the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  and  for  man- 
kind, by  which  law,  and  in  accordance  with  it,  each 
separate  kind  of  men  and  women  now  persistently 
reproduced  have  been  so  reproduced  after  his  Tcind 
since  the  day  of  Creation. 

We  have  read  tlie  Genesis  for  nearly 
fifty"  years  as  was  supposed  understand- 
iugly,  and  for  over  tliirty  years  critically 
investigating  every  word  and  every  sen- 
tence. It  is  safe  to  say  that  this  reading 
and  hearing  read  of  this  chapter  has  ex- 
tended to  hundreds  of  times,  if  not  to  a 
thousand  times.  Still,  this  great  and  im- 
portant law  of  reproduction  repeated 
three  times  in  that  cha]3ter  escaped  our 
notice,  and  probably  never  would  have 
been  observed  but  for  the  followino^  cir- 


40  FIRST   POSTULATE. 

cumstance:  This  last  spring,  1873,  while 
listening  to  the  reading  of  that  chapter  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Cooke,  in  St.  Bartholomew's 
Church,  we  followed  him  closely  as  he  read 
along,  every  word  and  idea  being  familiar. . 
He  passed  over  the  law  of  reproduction 
for  the  vegetable  kingdom,  and  over  the 
same  for  the  creations  of  tlie  fifth  day.  Bat 
when  he  opened  on  the  24th  verse,  which 
reads :  "  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  the  living  creature  after  his  MndJ"^ 
etc.,  a  flood  of  light  burst  upon  our  mind, 
and,  absorbed  in  reflection,  we  lost  the 
reading  of  the  balance  of  the  chapter. 

After  services,  we  returned  home,  took 
up  the  Bible,  read  the  chapter  over,  and  .to 
our  amazement  found  this  law  of  repro- 
duction, three  times  'repeated.  The  first 
expression  was,  "Do  I  know  anything 
about*  the  Genesis  after  all  ?  "  By.  subse- 
quent reflection  we  found  that  this  was  not 
the  discovery  of  an  error  but  the  discovery 


riEST    POSTULATE.    '  41 

of  a  new  fact,  and  we  at  once  determined 
to  aofain  renew  and  continue  our  inves- 
tigation  witli  redoubled  energy.  AVliether 
tMs  law  is  new  or  not  to  others  we  have 
no  means  of  determining,  but  we  have 
never  seen  it  referred  to  in  any  work,  or 
spoken  of  from  the  puljDit  in  the  light  we 
read  it  now. 

There  is,  however,  no  one  principle  more 
familiar  to  the  .observation  of  men  than  the 
operation  of  this  law ;  no  one  principle  upon 
which  we  all  so  much  depend.  It  is  the 
beginning  and  the  ending  of  all  our  calcu- 
lations based  in  the  operations  of  Nature. 
It  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  all  certainty. 
Do  we  sow  the  seed,  not  knowing  what 
hind  shall  be  produced  ?  Do  we  breed  the 
animal,  not  kno^ving  what  hind  will  be 
the  result?  Does' the  Caucasian  propagate 
and  not  know  what  hind  of  a  child  wdll  be 
born  to  him  ? 

As   examjDles:     Do   we   sow   the    grass 


42  •  FIRST   POSTULATE. 

seed,  and  expect  thistles  to  spring  from  the 
germs  ?  Do  we  plant  corn,  and  expect  to 
find  wheat  in  the  ears  ?  Do  we  plant  the 
apple  seed,  and  expect  the  sturdy  oak  as 
the  tree  ?  Do  we  breed  from  the  cow,  and 
expect  the  ass?  Do  we  breed  from  the 
sheep,  and  expect  the  goat  ?  Do  we  breed 
from  the  hen,  and  expect  the  horse  ?  Does 
the  fair-skinned  Caucasian  marry  the  fair- 
skinned  Caucasian,  and  expect  the  J^egro  for 
a  progeny?  Does  the  Mongol  marry  the 
Mongol,  and  expect  the  Caucasian  for  his 
progeny  ? 

Or  these  examples :  Do  we  plant  corn, 
and  expect  the  alligator  ?  Do  we  plant  the 
apple  seed,  and  expect  an  ox?  Do  we  sow 
the  grass  seed,  and  expect  a  human  being  ? 
Do  we  breed  from  the  cow,  and  expect  a 
peach  tree  ?  Do  we  breed  from  the  sheep, 
and  expect  the  moccasin  snake  ?  Do 
we  breed  from  the  hen,  and  ex]3ect  the 
Indian?     Does   any   human    being   marry 


FIRST   POSTULATE.  43 

his  fair  bride,  and  expect  as  liis  progeny 
any  one  of  tliese  things  ? 

No.  We  sow  the  grass  seed,  and  exi)QGt 
and  get  the  grass  of  the  kind  we  so^v. 
We  jDlant  the  corn,  and  expect  and  get  the 
kind  we  plant.  We  plant  the  apple  seed, 
and  we  expect  and  get  the  hind  of  apple 
we  plant.  We  breed  from  the  sheep,  and 
we  get  the  M?id  we  breed  from.  We  breed 
from  the  hen,  and  we  get  the  hind  we 
breed  from.  The  fair-skinned  Caucasian 
marries  the  fair-skinned  Caucasian,  and 
the  same  kind  is  the  progeny — a  fair- 
skinned  Caucasian.  The  Negro  marries 
the  Negro,  and  the  same  7ci7id  is  the 
progeny — a  Negro.  The  Mongol  marries 
the  Mongol :  the  same  hind  is  the  progeny 
— a  Mongol. 

If  kinds  are  mixed  in  production,  the 
result  will  be  mixed.  If  one  kind  pre- 
dominates over  another  in  reproduction, 
the  result  will  tend  to  that  kind,  and  if 


4:4c  FIRST   POSTULATE. 

continued   the  weaker   kind  will   run  out 
and  disappear. 

This  law  of  reproduction,  upon  whicli 
we  all  so  firmly  depend,  is  not  a  law  of 
cliance,  nor  tlie  result  of  trials  by  the 
Creator  to  establish  and  make  it  effective. 
It  was  proclaimed  on  the  threshold  of 
creation,  and  on  the  day  of  the  making  or 
creating  of  each  hind  to  which  the  law 
applies.  It  was  in  full  force  on  that  day, 
and,  as  one  of  the  unchangeable  laws 
emanating  from  this  high  Source,  has  con- 
tinued unchanged  and  un variable  to  the 
present  moment,  and  will  continue  during 
all  existences  which  are  reproduced.  As 
we  see  its  operation,  so  has  every  human 
being  seen  its  operation.  ■  Ages  past  have 
witnessed  it. and  depended  upon  it,  nor  has 
that  dependence  ever  been  disappointed  in 
the  violation  of  the  law.  Our-'experience, 
and  the  want  of  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
confirm   the  fact  that  this  law  applies  to 


FIRST   POSTULATE.  45 

all  reproductions.  We  quote  the  passages 
of  Scripture  wliicli  contain  tliis  law,  both 
for  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  as 
well  as  for  mankind : 

Gen.  i.  11.  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 
grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree 
yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself, 
upon  the  earth  :  and  it  was  so.  ■ 

Gen.  i.  21.  And  God  created  great  whales,  and  every 
living  creature  that  moveth,  which  the  waters 
brought  forth  abundantly  after,  their  lind,  and 
every  winged  fowl  after  his  Mnd :  and  God  saw 
that  it  was  good. 

Gen.  i.  24.  And    God  said.   Let  the.  eabth  bring 

FORTH    THE     LIVING    CREATURE    AFTER    HIS    KIND, 

cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth 
after  his  hind  :  and  it  was  so.        «■ 

This  is  the  King  James  translation,  and 
seems  plain,  but  the  Hebrew  is  still  plainer 
in  the  last  verse,  which  applies  to  the 
human  race.     We  give  them  literally  : 

Gen.  i.  11.  And  said  God,  Let  sprout  forth  the  earth 
-     grass  of  green  herbage,  seeding  seed  tree  of  fruit 

making  fruit  to  Us  lind,  which  its  seed  in  it  upon  the 

earth :  and  it  was  so. 
Gen.  i.  21.  And   created   God  the  sea  monsters,   the 

great,  and  every  soul  of  the  life  which  creeping, 


46  FIKST   POSTULATE. 

which  brought  forth  abundantly,  the  waters  to 
their  Mild,  and  every  fowl  of  wing  to  its  hind:  and 
saw  God  that  good. 
Gen.  i.  24.  And  said  God,  Let  brixg  forth  tele 
EAUTH  SOUL  OP  LIFE  TO  ITS  KES'D.  Cattle,  and 
creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  to  its  Tcind  : 
and  it  was  so. 


It  will  be  observed  tliat  the  expression 
soul  of  THE  life^  is  used  for  the  creations  of 
the  fifth  day,  while  in  those  of  the  sixth 
day,  when  mankind  were  made  and 
created,  it  is  soul  of  life.  What  the  dif- 
ference is,  if  there  be  any,  we  are  unable 
to  find  out  from  the  inspired  word  itself. 
We  therefore  do  not  pretend  to  make  an 
explanation,  but  pass  on  with  the  remark 
that  words  are  not  eno^raved  in  that  record 
without  they  have  a  meaning,  though  we 
may  not  readily  see  it. 

The  last  law  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
creations  of  the  sixth  day.  But  this  is 
not  all.  God  not  only  gave  mankind  a 
law  by  which  their  reproduction  should  be 


FIRST   POSTULATE.  47 

governed,  but  gave  them  a  command  to 
increase  J  and  multijyly^  and  replenish  the 
earth.  What  condition  would  2:)oor  hu- 
manity have  been  in,  to  follow  this  com- 
mand, if  no  law  had  been  devised  and 
established  by  which  it  could  be  carried 
out  ?  The  law  would  seem  a  necessity 
following  the  command. 

If  there  'had  been  no  record  of  the  la^v 
as  there  is  none  of  gravitation,  we  would 
conclude  that  there  must  have  been  such 
a  law  established  in  the  day  of  creation, 
because  of  its  operation  or  result. 

Can  a  child  be  born  without  a  law  of 
God  to  regulate  its  gro^vth  and  birth? 
We  all  know  that  reproduction  is  now- car- 
ried on  in  the  human  family,  and  has  been 
through  the  range  of  all  history,  in  exact 
accordance  with  some  law  of  God  upon 
the  subject.  Is  this,  then,  the  law  of  re- 
production required  by  mankind  to  increase 
and   multiply   and   replenish    the    earth? 


48  first  postulate. 

Let  the  eaeth  bring  forth  the  living 
CREAi^URE  AFTER  HIS  KIND,  or  as  the  He- 
brew states  it,  Let  bring  forth  the  earth 

SOUL  OF  LIFE  TO  ITS  KIND. 

What  meaning  can  be  attached  to  this 
portion  of  God's  word,  if  it  does  not  stand 
for  reproduction  in  the  haman  family,  when 
man  is  a  living  creature  of  God,  and  man 
is  a  soul  of  life.  Although  this  law  is  a 
prominent  law  plainly  laid  down  in  Script- 
ure, as  far  as  our  knowledge  extends  it 
has  received  no  notice,  and  has  been  a  dead 
letter  upon  the  record.  Further  than  this, 
the  construction  of  the  unity  of  the  race, 
or  that  the  various  kinds  of  men  have  all 
descended  from  Adam  and  Eve,  is  in  dead- 
lock with  the  law. .  Is  this  deadlock  in  the 
word  itself,  or  is  it  in  a  manism  imposed  in 
error  upon  our  King  James  translation? 
Is  it  a  deadlock  in  the  inspired  Hebrew, 
or  is  it  a  deadlock  in  the  translation  ?  The 
word  of    God  never   stultifies   itself,   and 


FIRST   POSTULATE.  49 

whatever  mutilations  it  may  undergo  in 
its  transmission  into  another  langauge,  the 
original  word  stands.  Nor  can  any  such 
changes,  or  constructions  based  upon  them, 
change  either  the  Divine  law  or  its  opera- 
tion. 

If  this  be  so — and  we  cannot  see  ho\v  it 
can  be  otherwise — how  has  this  thing  hap- 
pened ?  We  think  we  can  give  a  satisfac- 
tory answer  to  the  question.  In  the  first 
place  (and  where  it  commenced  we  cannot 
tell),  the  world  has  been  educated  to  the 
idea  that  we  have  all  descended  from 
Adam  and  Eve.  Some  have  controverted 
the  idea  upon  various  hypotheses  based 
upon  arguments  outside  the  Bible.  They 
have  all  been  unsuccessful,  because  the  as- 
sertion could  hot  be  disproved,  and  the  King- 
James  translation  aided  the  construction ; 
and  the  world  has  gone  forward  under  this 
teaching,  till  the  idea  has  become  stereo- 
typed upon  the  minds  of  almost  all  believ- 


J 


50  FIRST   POSTULATE. 

incj:  Christians.  All  have  read  the  Bible 
with  the  26th  and  27th  verses  of  Genesis, 
which  relates  to  the  creation  of  man,  as  one 
verse  in  substance,  made  so  by  the  transla- 
tors eliminating  the  word  And,  and  the 
placing  of  the  word  So  in  its  stead,  at  the 
beginning  of  Gen.  i.  27,  as  will  be  seen 
hereafter. 

No  questions  have  been  asked,  and  no 
remonstrance  made,  so  far  as  we  know. 
The  people  have  been  educated  on  one  act 
of  God,  in  the  creation  of  mankind,  instead 
of  two  acts,  and  of  course  the  theology  of 
the  unity  of  the  race  has  been  maintained. 
There  is  not,  in  all  probability,  one  reader 
in  a  million,  except  he  be  a  teacher, 
who  has  ever  compared  the  Hebrew  text 
of  the  Genesis  with  the  King  James 
translation;  and  if  he  had,  might  not 
have  seen  the  discrepancy.  Under  the 
construction  of  the  unity,  the  Genesis  i.  24, 
which   contains   the    law  of    reproduction 


FIEST   POSTULATE.  51 

of  tlie  liiiman  race,  Las  been  construed, 
l^robably — if  it  lias  liad  any  construc- 
tion— to  relate  to  the  brute  creation 
instead  of  to  mankind,  overlooking:  the 
fact  that  there  must  be  a  law  of  this 
kind  somewhere,  to  give  vitality  to  God's 
word,  and  that  man  is  a  living  creature  of 
God,  and  man  is  a  soul  of  life. 

We  can  readily  see  how  these  errors 
have  been  maintained  by  reference  to  our 
individual  case.  It  was  nearly  thirty  years 
of  comparison  of  the  Hebrew  text  with 
the  literal  translation,  referring  to  them 
both  in  all  our  investigations,  before  we 
discovered  the  substitution  of  So  for  Axd 
at  the  beginning  of  Genesis  i.  27  ;  and  over 
thirty  years  till  we  discovered  the  law  of 
i-eproduction  of  the  human  family.  Others 
probably  would  have  accomplished  it 
quicker  or  not  at  all,  but  this  is  the  fact. 

There  is  not  a  single  married  man,  whether 
he  be  a  teacher  of  the  construction  of  the 


52  FIRST   POSTULATE. 

unity,  or  a  believer  in  it,  wlio  does  not  prac- 
tically use  this  law  of  reproduction  in  liis 
own  mind,  and  depend  upon  it  as  much  as 
he  does  upon  the  rising  and  setting  of  the 
sun.  He  expects  his  progeny  to  be  after 
Ms  hindj  and  he  is  never  disappointed. 
But  practically  he  applies  the  teachings 
and  belief  to  others  he  knows  not  of,  that 
their  progeny  was  at  some  time  in  violation 
of  the  law,  while  he  feels  secure  in  its  effi- 
ciency towards  himself. 

Before  we  shall  have  done  with  this 
subject.  We  hope  to  be  able  to  show  that 
this  construction  of  the  unity  of  the  race  is 
an  error,  and  is  not  due  to  the  Bible,  even 
independent  of  the  law  of  reproduction; 
with  that  law  recognized,  it  is  a  still 
graver  error.  It  has  not  been  our  purpose 
to  single  out  this  particular  construction, 
or  attack  it.  It  is  one  of  the  incidental 
points  in  the  discussion  that  will  correct 
itself  when  our  King  James  Bible  is  cor- 


FIKST   POSTULATE.  53 

rected  of  its  errors  of  translation  from  tlie 
Hebrew  text. 

What  is  a  Jcind^  as  spoken  of  in  the  law 
of  reproduction  of  the  vegetable  and  ani- 
mal kingdoms,  and  of  mankind  or  the  liv- 
ing creature  or  soul  of  life  ?  Is  man  a 
living  creature  of  God?  Webster  defines 
creature  to  mean,  "  That  which  is  created  ; 
every  being  beside  -  the  Creator,  or  every- 
thing not  self -existent.  The  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,  the  earth,  animals,  j^lants,  light,  dark- 
ness, water,  etc.,  are  the  creatm^es  of  God." 
If  these  be  tlie  creatures  of  God,  what  is  a 
living  creature  ?  The  answer  is  an  axiom : 
anything  made  or  sustained  by  God  that 
has  life. 

Let  those,  then,  who  are  willing  to  deny 
that  the  living  creature  spoken  of  in  Genesis 
i.  24  does  not  apply  to  mankind,  deny  it ; 
we  are  not  responsible  for  such  denial ;  we 
stand  by'the  word  as  it  is,  and  believe,  ^vhere 
inspiration  says.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 


54  FIEST   POSTULATE. 

tlie  living  creature  or  soul  of  life  after  his 
kind,  that  it  means  what  it  says,  and  that 
the  living  creature  or  soul  of  life  should  be 
brought  forth  after  his  Icind^  and  that  man, 
being  a  living  creature  of  God,  should  be 
bound  in  being  brought  forth  by  this  com- 
mand, and  in  obedience  to  this  law. 

This  law,  being  established  on  the  day  of 
creation,  applied  to  the  normal  condition 
of  mankind  on  that  day ;  and  no  doubt  the 
law  would  have  been  carried  out  in  strict 
obedience,  and  only  the  various  kinds  of 
men  then  made  would  have  been  repro- 
duced after  Ms  hind^  but  for  the  fall  of 
Adah  and  Eve,  when  hybridity  between 
Mnds  commenced  and  has  continued  ever 
since.  The  first  example  is  recorded  in  the 
marriage  of  the  sons  of  God  to  the  daugh- 
ters or  descendants  of  Adam  and  Eve,  as 
will  be  seen  hereafter. 

The  question  may  be  mooted,  that  hind^ 
as  used,  means  that  trees  should  reproduce 


FIEST   POSTULATE.  55 

trees,  that  animals  should  rej)roduce  ani- 
mals, and  that  man  should  reproduce  man. 
If  this  was  the  class  of  ideas  intended  to  he 
conveyed,  why  was  it  not  so  expressed  ? 
Why  was  not  this  form  and  shape  given  to 
the  law  ?  If  we  admit  that  whatever  is  re- 
produced in  the  vegetable  and  animal  king- 
doms, or  of  mankind,  is  by  the  law,  or  is 
the  work  of  God,  our  observation  must  be 
our  guide  to  determine  what  the  law  works 
upon.  We  see  the  work  going  on  before 
our  eyes,  and  we  depend  upon  results  by 
what  has  been,  will  be ;  and  hence  we  must 
admit  the  constant  recurrence  of  results  as 
of  and  governed  by  a  law,  or  deny  the  ex- 
istence of  a  supreme  and  sustaining  Being. 
Now,  what  do  we  find  in  the  operations 
of  IN^ature  ?  We  find  that  trees  reproduce 
trees,  that  vegetables  reproduce  vegetables, 
that  animals  reproduce  animals,  and  that 
man  reproduces  man.  But  do  we  find 
nothing   further?     Yes,  we   find   a   lower 


56  EIEST   POSTULATE. 

subdivision  of  reproductions  than  such  a 
law  or  classification  makes:  we  find  not 
only  that  trees  reproduce  trees,  but  they 
are  reproduced  after  Ms  hind  ivJiose  seed  is 
in  itself ;  we  find  not  only  that  animals 
reproduce  animals,  but  that  each  hind  of 
animal  reproduces  itself.  We  find,  too,  that 
not  only  man  reproduces  man,  but  we  find 
that  various  hinds  of  men  reproduce  them- 
selves persistently,  and  have  done  so  during 
the  range  of  all  history. 

We  take  the  word  as  corresponding  with 
the  acts  of  God  as  we  see  them  developed, 
and  accept  without  cavil  that  these  acts 
are  in  accordance  with  and  flow  from  the 
law  of  reproduction,  after  Ms  hind.  That 
hind  means  any  separate  and  distinct  line 
of  existence  that  continues  to  he  reproduced 
and  has  heen  so  reproduced  during  all  his- 
tory. We  find  no  difiiculty  in  giving  force, 
vitality,  and  meaning  to  the  term  when  we 
apply  it  to  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life. 


riEST   POSTULATE.  57 

We  say  kinds  of  apples,  kinds  of  peaches, 
kinds  of  pears,  kinds  of  grass,  kinds  of  ani- 
mals, kinds  of  slieep,  kinds  of  any  and  every 
thing ;  and  finally,  kinds  of  men  and  women. 
Why,  then,  can  we  not  give  it  force,  vital- 
ity, and  meaning  when  we  find  it  in  the 
word  of  God  ? 

When,  then,  we  find  the  law  so  plainly 
laid  down.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the 
living  creature^  or  soul  of  life^  after  his 
Mnd^  shall  we  hesitate  to  acknowledge  the 
law,  acknowledo-e  that  man  is  a  livino^ 
creature  of  God,  or  soul  of  life  of  God ; 
acknowledge  that  Mud  is  a  subdivision  of 
mankind  as  we  see  them  reproduced  after 
his  hind  at  this  time  throughout  the  earth  ? 
Had  we  not  rather  examine  the  subject  and 
ourselves  to  see  if  there  has  not  been  an 
error  in  our  reading,  an  error  in  oui'  con- 
struction, or  an  error  in  our  comprehension, 
of  this  important  command  and  law. 
Whether  we  have  so  carefully  scrutinized 


58  riEST   POSTULATE. 

the  Hebrew  inspiration  tliat  we  can  set 
aside  and  ignore  tMs  portion  of  God's  word, 
and  satisfy  ourselves  by  saying  that  our 
construction  and  our  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  is  right,  although  in  deadlock  with 
the  law,  and  of  its  operation  before  our  eyes. 
We  must  then  conclude  that  there  were 
kinds  of  people  made  in  the  day  of  creation 
as  well  as  kinds  in  the  vegetable  and  kinds 
in  the  animal  kingdom,  as  it  is  not  suppos- 
able  that  a  law  would  be  framed  by  an 
All-wise  Being  to  operate  upon  that  which 
did  not  exist.  As  the  laws  of  God  are 
continuous  and  unchanging,  we  also  con- 
clude that  hinds  of  men  have  always 
existed  as  we  know  they  now  exist,  and 
that  the  law  of  reproduction,  after  his 
hind,  has  been  in  constant  force  and  opera- 
tion *  since  the  day  of  its  establishment. 
This  is  the  reasoning  upon  the  subject ;  the 
facts  we  will  show  hereafter  from  the 
record  itself. 


SECOND  POSTULATE. 

That  the  Hebrew  Genesis  records  the  making  or  creating 
of  Two  Adams — the  one  named  by  God  Himself,  and 
that  name  explained  by  Moses  as  standing  for  a  class 
male  and  female  man  in  the  day  of  Creation.  The 
other,  the  name  of  the  individual  man  placed  in  tlie 
Garden  of  Eden,  and  in  the  Hebrew  Genesis  most 
generally  called  Ha-Ada.m  or  The  Adam,  and  some- 
times called  Adam  without  the  article  prefixed. 

The  announcement  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  two  Adams  named  in  the  Hebrew,  will 
astonish  many;  but  the  astonishment  will 
be  still  greater  when  they  are  informed 
that  the  Kins:  James  translation  calls  also 
for  the  same  number.  We  have  searched 
carefully  to  ascertain  if  Adam  the  class 
was  used  in  any  other  portions  of  the  Bible 
except  in  the  two  places  where  it  occurs 
in  the  Genesis,  but  without  success.  These 
two    places  are,    the    first   in    Genesis   i. 


60  SECOND   POSTULATE. 

26,  and  the  second  where  the  name  is 
defined  in  Genesis  v.  2.  There  are  other 
places  where  the  term  is  used  where  the 
individual's  name  Adam  would  seem  to  be 
inapplicable;  but  we  would  not  take  the 
responsibility  of  saying  that  the  meaning 
in  those  places  should  be  Adam  male  and 
female  man.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  too,  that 
God  Himself  gave  that  name  to  this  class 
male  and  female.  There  is  in  contrast  with 
this,  that  it  is  not  stated  in  the  record  who 
named  Ha- Adam  or  The  Adam  of  the  Gar- 
den of  Eden. 

The  only  safe  rule  to  be  adopted  in  read- 
ing an  inspired  record,  where  we  may  or 
may  not  get  at  the  exact  meaning,  is  to 
give  full  force  to  every  term  and  expression 
— not  to  eliminate  a  term  because  we  do 
not  understand  it.  On  this  principle  can 
any  one  explain  why  this  name  Adam  oc- 
curring in  the  Genesis  i.  26  was  eliminated 
from  its  place  there,  and  why  it  was  re- 


SECOND   POSTULATE.  61 

tainecl  in  Genesis  v.  2,  where  tlie  name  is 
defined  ? 

We  will,  however,  examine  the  two  prin- 
cipal acts  of  creation  recorded  in  Genesis 
i.  26  and  in  Genesis  i.  27.  We  say  they 
are  different  and  principal  acts,  beca.use 
the  acts  of  creating  and  making  are  differ- 
ent, and  the  subjects  were  different.  For 
the  class  Adam  in  Genesis  i.  26  was  made 
in  that  verse,  and  created  in  Genesis  v.  2, 
where  the  term  is  defined;  while  PIa- 
Adam,  or  The  Adam,  and  male  and  female, 
were  created  in  Gen.  i.  27,  and  w^ade  in  the 
Genesis  ii.  7,  22,  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  Eve  from  the  rib  of  The  AdzVM.  So 
that  both  acts  in  the  two  verses  were 
making  and  creating,  whatever  was  made 
or  created  in  each. 

What  the  difference  of  creating  and 
making  consisted  in,  or  whether  there  was 
any  difference,  we  cannot  say ;  but  such  is 
the  record,  and  so  we  read  it.     We  con- 


62  SECOND    POSTULATE. 

elude  there  was  a  difference  from  this  quo- 
tation : 

Gen.  ii.  3.  And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and 
sanctified  it :  because  that  in  it  He  had  rested  from 
all  His  work  which  God  created  and  made. 

The  following  are  the  only  two  verses  of 
Genesis  i.  which  record  the  making  or 
creating  of  mankind : 

Gen.  i.  26.  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  Adam  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness:  and  let  them  have 
dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all 
the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth. 

Gen.  i.  27.  And  God  created  Ha-Adam  in  His  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him  :  male 
and  female  created  He  them. 

This  is  the  inspired  record,  and  these  are 
the  names  used  in  the  Hebrew.  God  has 
placed  them  there,  and  man  has  obliterated 
them  and  expunged  them  from  His  holy 
record  in  the  King  James  translation. 
The  name  of  the  class  Adam,  occurring  but 
once  in  this  account,  can  be  clearly  identi- 
fied both  in  its  position  and  in  its  meaning. 


SECOND   POSTULATE.  63 

Are  Christians  entitled  to  the  word  of 
God  as  written  by  inspiration,  or  are  they 
to  accept  the  garbled  manisms  of  fore- 
stalled construction?  We  claim  the  God 
name  Adam  anywhere  and  everywhere,  into 
whatever  language  the  word  of  God  may 
be  translated,  as  a  name  not  to  be  altered, 
changed,  or  fixed  up  in  some  other  shape, 
to  prove  a  construction  not  •  warranted,  if 
these  names  are  retained  in  the  places 
where  God  has  put  them.  The  clear,  dis- 
tinct, and  unmistakable  definition  of  this 
name  given  by  God  Himself  is  exj)lained  by 
His  inspired  writer,  Moses,  as  follows : 

Gen.  V.  2.  Male  and  female  created  He  them ;  and  blessed 
them,  and  called  their  name  Adam,  in  the  day  when 
they  were  created. 

What  genuine  truth  can  there  be  in  any 
transcrij)tion  of  Gen.  i.  26,  that  does  not 
contain  either  the  name  Adam  or  the  defi- 
nition given  of  it  here?  Can  there  be 
urged  any  objection   to  a  name  given  by 


64  SECOl^D   POSTULATE. 

God  Himself,  tliat  it  should  not  appear  in 
what  purports  to  be  His  revelation  ?  If 
this  name  had  been  retained,  then  the 
verse  would  read  in  this  respect : 

Gen.  i.  26.  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  Adam,  etc. 

And  if  the  meaning  or  definition  of  the 
name  given  by  Moses  had  been  used  in- 
stead, then  it  would  read ; 

Gen.  i.  26.  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  male  and  female 
man,  etc. 

But,  says  the  constructionist,  male  and 
female  man  are  created  in  the  next  verse, 
and  how  can  that  be?  never  remember- 
ing that  by  this  inquiry  he  assumes  to 
direct  God  in  His  creation,  and  calls  Moses 
to  account  for  his  accuracy.  Those  who 
cannot  gain  a  consistent  idea  from  the 
record  as  it  stands  in  the  Hebrew,  would 
do  well  to  consider  whether  that  be  due 
to  a  want  of  research  in  themselves,  or 
whether  it  should  be  charged  as  a  defect 


SECOXD    POSTULATE.  65 

upon  the  Creator  and  His  inspired  re- 
corder. In  other  words,  whether  the 
Hebrew  record  is  to  be  changed  at  will  to 
brinoj  it  into  coincidence  with  our  own 
views  of  what  it  should  be,  or  stand  as 
God  has  given  it  to  us  through  His  in- 
spired writers  ? 

What,  then,  have  been  the  mutilations  of 
these  two  verses  relating  to  the  creation  of 
mankind  ?  We  give  them  as  they  appear 
in  our  English  Bible : 

Gen.  i.  26.  And  -Ood  said,  Let  us  make  mail  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness  :  and  let  them  have  do- 
minion over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the 
earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth. 

Gen.  i.  27.  /So  God  created  man  in  His  own  image,  in 
the  image  of  God  created  He  him  ;  male  and  female 
created  He  them. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  there  are 
tJiJ^ee  very  important  eliminations  in  these 
two  verses,  and  still  more  important  sub- 
stitutions for  original  Hebrew  names  and 


(jQ  SECOIS-D   POSTULATE. 

terms.  The  first  is  tlie  striking  out  in 
Gen.  i.  26  of  Adam  (male  and  female 
man,  Gen.  v.  2),  and  substituting  man  in 
its  stead.  The  second,  the  striking  out  the 
Hebrew  word  Vay,  meaning  and,  at  the 
beginning  of  Gen.  i.  27,  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  English  word  So  in  its  stead ; 
and,  third,  the  striking  out  of  the  Hebrew 
name  Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adam,  and  the 
substitution  of  the  word  man  in  its  stead.  ' 
To  any  reader  who  never  saw  the  He- 
brew, man  in  the  Genesis  i.  26  would  be 
considered  identical  as  a  term,  and  as 
identical  in  meaning  with  man  in  Gen.  i. 
27  ;  and  so  it  is  in  fact  in  the  translation, 
and  we  will  soon  give  the  reason.  We 
now  ask  the  question  vital  to  the  subject : 
Is  Adam,  defined  as  male  and  female  man, 
identical  as  a  term  and  in  meaning  with 
Ha- Adam,  The  Adam,  or  Adam  the  indi- 
vidual man  placed  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden?     We  say  decidedly,  and  most  em- 


SECOJSTD   POSTULATE.  67 

phatically,  No  !  they  are  neither  the  same 
term — the  one  being  Adam,  the  other  II a- 
Adam,  in  the  Hebrew;  nor  are  they  the 
same  in  meaning — the  one  being  the  God 
name  of  a  class  male  and  female,  the  other 
being  the  name  of  a  single  male  man. 

Under  the  eliminations  and  substitutions 
pointed  out,  our  King  James  Bible  is  made 
to  declare  that  tliese  two  terms  are  identical 
as  terms,  and  as  identical  in  meaning  ;  and 
this  was  accomplished  in  a  way  not  at  all 
creditable  to  the  translators — whoever  they 
were,  first  or  last — in  our  humble  judg- 
ment. This  necessity  called  for  a  radical 
change  in  the  text.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
retaining  the  God  word  Ais^d  at  the  begin- 
ning of  Gen.  i.  27,  they  eliminated  it,  and 
placed  in  its  stead  the  manism  So.  Thus 
mero;ino^  the  Genesis  i.  26  into  the  Genesis 
i.  27,  and  making:  but  one  act  'of  creatine: 
and  making,  instead  of  two;  or  in  other 
words,  making   the   first  a  declaration  of 


68  SECOKD    POSTULATE. 

intention  to  do  wliat  was  done  in  tlie 
second. 

It  will  be  seen  that  tlie  word  So  could 
not  liave  been  used  if  tlie  Hebrew  names 
x\dam  and  Ha- Ad  am  had  not  been  stricken 
out,  and  a  common  term  substituted  for 
both ;  and  this  accounts  for  the  translators 
not  using  these  Hebrew  names  in  the  fore- 
part of  the  Genesis.  This  word  So  is  an 
utter  stranger  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
well  it  should  be,  when  it  makes  the  sup- 
posed inspired  record  declare  that  Adam, 
male  and  female  man,  is  identical  mth 
Ha-Adam,  the  individual.  Even  though 
the  terms  and  creative  acts  had  been  the 
same,  so  far  as  man  could  judge,  it  would 
be  an  unwarrantable  transgression  for  any 
one  to  eliminate  the  word  Ai^d  from  the 
record  and  substitute  its  diametrically 
opposite  in  meaning,  the  word  So,  in  its 
stead. 

To  make  this  point  more  clear,  suppose 


SECOND    POSTULATE.  69 

the  translators  had  retained  Adam  in  Gen.  i. 
26,  and  placed  Ada3I  as  representing  the 
individual  in  Gen.  i.  27,  and  then  used  the 
word  So  at  the  beginning  of  the  last-named 
verse,  without  any  further  explanation  of 
the  meaning  of  the  two  terms.  Would 
the  reader  conclude  that  Ada3I  in  the  one 
verse  was  identical  with  Adam  in  the 
other  ?  Most  certainly  he  would,  and  he 
would  be  bound  to  do  so.  Then,  when 
man  is  substituted  in  each  in  the  place  of 
Ada3I  and  Ha-Adam,  can  the  ordinary 
reader  gain  any  other  idea  than  that  man 
in  each  is  identical  in  meaning  ? 

What,  then,  is  the  effect  of  these  elimi- 
nations and  substitutions  upon  the  record 
of  the  creation  of  mankind  as  a  whole? 
They  make  good  the  construction  generally 
received  by  various  religious  sects  and  the 
Christian  world,  that  all  mankind  have 
descended  from  Adam  and  Eve.  If  the 
construction  be   as   true   as   the   premises 


'TO  SECO^iTD   POSTULATE. 

from  whicli  it  is  drawn,  and  the  Christian 
world  knew  it,  there  would  be  nothing 
more  to  write  about  on  this  subject.  Such, 
unfortunately,  is  not  the  case.  All  read- 
ers of  the  English  Bible  suppose  they 
have  been  reading  the  unmutilated  and 
true  word  of  God  respecting  the  creation 
of  mankind,  never  for  one  moment  suspect- 
ing that  they  were  reading  what  has  no 
place  in  the  original  inspired  writings. 

The  positive  effect  of  such  eliminations 
and  substitutions  has  been  the  wiping  out 
of  the  record  in  the  translation  a  principal 
act  of  God  in  the  creation  of  mankind  con- 
tained in  the  Hebrew.  For  whatever  con- 
struction men  choose  to  place  upon  the 
Genesis  i.  26,  there  is  one  thing  certain  : 
that  it  does  record  some  act  of  God  in  this 
direction.  Those  who  will  construe  it  as  a 
soliloquy,  "  Let  us  make  Adam,"  etc.,  Avith- 
out  an  act  or  intent  of  an  accomplished  act, 
are  at  liberty  to  do  so.     But  Moses  gener- 


SECOin>   POSTULATE.  71 

ally  wrote  to  record,  and  not  to  mystify. 
Therefore,  when  he  writes.  And  God  said : 
Let  us  make  Ada^i  (male  and  female 
man)  to  have  dominion,  etc.,  we  conclude 
that  this  means  something.  We  have,  too, 
the  highest  authority  for  our  belief,  and 
that  authority  is  no  less  than  God  Himself. 
And  God  said^  Let  us  (the  Godhead) 
make  something.  What  ?  Answer :  Ada:,i 
(male  and  female  man)  to  have  dominion, 
etc.  Is  this  a  deception,  or  a  truth?  Did 
God  do  what  He  said  He  was  going  to  do, 
or  did  He  not  ?  We  bplieve  He  did  do 
just  what  He  said  He.  was  going  to  do, 
namely,  make  Adam  (male  and  female 
man). 

The  Genesis  i.  26  we  regard  as  complete 
in  itself,  expressing  all  that  is  necessary 
for  the  bringing  into  existence  the  subject- 
matter  named.  If  no  other  verse  was 
^vritten,  giving  further  account  of  the  cre- 
ating or  making  of  manldnd,  no  one  would 


72  SECOND   POSTULATE. 

pretend  that  this  was  not  enough  to  show 
to  man  the  time  and  position  of  the  bring- 
ing into  existence  this  particular  line  of 
created  beings.  By  looking  the  whole  ac- 
count of  the  Genesis  through,  we  find  ex- 
pressions preceding  the  act  of  making,  such 
as — 

G-en.  i.  6.  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament,  etc. 
Gen.  i.  11.  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 

grass,  etc. 
Gen.  i.  14.  And  God  said.  Let  there  be  lights  in  the 

firmament,  etc.- 
Gen.  i.  20.  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth 

abundantly,  etc. 
Gen.  i.  24.  And  God  said,   Let  the  earth  bring  forth 

the  living  creature,  etc. 

In  none  of  these  is  the  word  make  or 
made  used;  but  made  is  used  in  most 
afiirmative  acts  of  making.    As  examples — 

Gen.  i.  7.  And  God  made  the  firmament,  etc. 
Gen.  i.  16.  And  God  made  two  great  lights,  etc. 
Gen.  i.  25.  And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth,  etc. 
Gen.  i.  26.  And  God  said.  Let  us  make  Adam,  etc. 

Neither  the  word  make  nor  made  is  any- 
where used  in  the  Genesis  i.,  except  to  an 


SECOND    POSTULATE.  73 

affirmative  act  of  makiiio;.  The  recorded 
declaration  of  intention  to  make,  by  an  all- 
wise  God,  would  seem  to  be  not  only  useless, 
but  worse.  Of  course  He  liad  tlie  intention 
to  make  ^diat  He  did  make,  and  if  every 
creation  or  making  was  jDreceded  in  tlie 
record  by  a  declaration  of  this  import,  it 
would  be  mainly  taken  up  with  verbiage 
of  tbis  nature.  It  is  neither  the  rule,  nor 
is  there  a  single  instance  of  it  in  the  whole 
of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  AVhen 
God  said.  Let  us  mcike  Adam  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness,  etc.,  we  take  the  decla- 
ration as  equivalent  to  the  act.  In  other 
words,  if  He  said  He  would  make  Ada31,  He 
did  mcike  them;  and  if  he  created  Ha- 
Ada3i  and  male  and  female.  He  did  create 
them. 

For  ourselves,  we  will  not  dispute  the 
record,  and  we  firmly  hope  that  God  will 
hold  us  guiltless,  if  we  nail  our  belief  to 
His  sacred  word,  and  read  it  just  in  accord- 


74  SECOND    POSTULATE. 

ance  with  the  words  laid  down,  even 
though  the  whole  world  disj)iite  it  or  gain- 
say it.  We  then  read  the  Genesis  i.  26 
and  Genesis  i.  27  separately  and  indepen- 
dently as  they  stand,  as  there  is  nothing  in 
Scripture  demanding  that  they  should  be 
read  otherwise. 

This  act-  in  Genesis  i.  26  is,  then,  a  prin- 
cipal act  of  God  in  creation,  and  should 
stand  out  in  as  bold  relief  as  any  other 
principal  act;  it  being  separated  from  the 
succeeding  one  in  Genesis  i.  27  by  the 
word  And,  which  indicates,  if  permitted  to 
have  its  proper  place  in  the  record,  an  ad- 
ditional act.  But  by  using  the  word  So 
instead  of  And,  and  the  word  Man  for 
Adam  (male  and  female)  and  for  Ha- Ad  am, 
this  principal  act  is  eliminated  from  the 
English  record ;  and  those  who  have  read 
the  King  James  translation  have  been  en- 
tirely in  the  dark  as  to  this  one  act  of  God 
in  the  ci*eation  of  mankind. 


SECOND   POSTULATE.  Y5 

Having  then,  we  tliink,  shown  clearly 
that  the  Genesis  i.  26  was  not  written  for 
nothing,  and  that  it  records  one  act  of  God 
in  the  making  of  mankind,  we  pass  from  it 
to  the  consideration  of  what  act  or  acts  are 
recorded  as  having  been  done  in  Genesis  i. 
27.  The  act  in  Gen  i.  26  was  the  making  of 
whatever  was  made,  and  the  act  or  acts  in 
Genesis  i.  27  was  the  creating  of  what- 
ever was  created.  The  difEerence  we  can- 
not explain  Scripturally,  though  we  have 
our  individual  opinion  upon  the  subject. 
We  read  Scripturally,  as  the  record  stands  : 

Gen.  i.  27.  And  God  created  Ha- Adam  in  His  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him.  Male 
and  female  created  He  them. 

Ha-Adam,  being  the  Hebrew  name  in 
this  verse,  is  readily  recognized  as  the 
individual  man  placed  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  and  this  name  is  uniformly  used  in 
every  place  with  two  exceptions,  where  he 
is  referred  to  in  Gen.  ii.     Ha  being  tlie  in 


76  SECOND   POSTULATE. 

English,  The  Adam  is  the  proper  English 
name,  though  he  is  also  frequently  called 
Adam  in  the  Hebrew.  In  every  such  case 
known,  it  is  plain  to  see  that  it  is  intended 
for  an  individual,  as  for  example : 

Gen.  iv.  1.  And  Adam  knew  his  wife;  and  she  con- 
ceived and  bare  Cain,  and  said,  I  have  gotten  a  man 
from  tlie  Lord. 

It  would  be  somewhat  ridiculous  to  use 
the  other  Adam  in  this  verse,  or  substitute 
its  meaning ;  but  in  order  to  see  how  it 
v/ould  look  on  paper,  we  will  do  so. 

Gen.  iv.  1 .  And  male  and  female  man  knew  his  wife ; 
and  she  conceived  and  bare  Cain,  and  said,  I  have 
gotten  a  man  from  the  Lord. 

Ha- Adam,  The  Adam,  or  Adam,  are  all 
correctly  used  to  denote  the  man  of  the  Gar- 
den of  Eden;  while  Adam  (male  and  fe- 
male), occurring  in  Gren.  i.  26,  and  Gen.  v.  2, 
is  a  specific  name  given  by  God,  and,  as  far 
as  we  know,  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the 
Bible.     The  reason  for  its  non-appearance 


SECOND   POSTULATE.  77 

may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  Ada:m  (male 
and  female  man),  as  will  be  seen  hereafter, 
are  the  heads  of  lines  of  reproduction  of  all 
other  kinds  of  peoples  not  Hebrews,  and 
the  Old  Testament  records  the  history  of 
the  Hebrew  kind. 

The  Grenesis  i.  27  records  three  separate 
acts  of  creation. 

First.  The  creation  of  Ha- Ad  am,  or  The 
Adam. 

Second.  The  creation  of  male. 

Third.  The  creation  of  female. 

There  is  no  Scriptural  connection  be- 
tween the  male  and  female  created  here, 
and  the  male  and  female  made  in  Gen.  i.  26. 
From  the  reading  it  would  be  reasonable 
to  conclude  that  the  male  and  female 
was  of  the  same  kind  as  Ha-AdxSji  ;  that 
the  creating  of  Ha-Ada3I  was  complete  with 
the  announcement,  and  that  the  male  was 
not  a  repetition  of  the  creation  of  Ha- 
Adam.     From  which  we  conclude  that  Ha- 


T8  .  SECOND    POSTULATE. 

Adam  was  not  created  hoicej  but  that  tlie 
male  or  males  referred  to  were  distinct 
creations  also.  This  will  be  referred  to 
under  the  Fourth  Postulate. 

What  we  have  undertaken  under  this 
postulate  is  to  show  the  making  or  creating 
of  two  Adams.  We  have  spoken  of  the 
first  in  Gen.  i.  26,  and  the  second  follows 
almost  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  Ha-Adam  of  the  Hebrew  is  The 
Adam  of  the  English,  or  simply  Adam,  as  he 
is  known  to  the  world,  being  the  first  man 
created  or  made,  and  generally  supposed  to 
be  the  father  of  all  mankind.  Although 
he  was  ScrijDturally  the  fii'st  man  made 
on  the  day  of  creation,  he  is  not  declared 
anywhere  to  be  the  only  man  so  made. 
Whereas,  v/e  think  the  Scripture  clearly 
states,  if  we  read  the  whole  as  contained  in 
the  Hebrew,  that  there  were  more  Hebrew 
males  made  on  the  day  of  creation  than 
HaAdam  or  The  Adam.     The  particle  The 


SECOND    POSTULATE.  79 

before  tlie  name  of  Adam  ^\'ould  iudicate 
particularization  of  tliis  indiWdual  as  dis- 
tino-uished  from  the  other  Adam  male 
and  female.  This,  however,  is  incidental, 
and  is  by  no  means  controlling  evidence  on 
this  subject. 

The  great  injustice  done  to  Christianity  by 
these  eliminations  of  terms  and  names,  and 
the  substitutions  whereby  the  sense  is  lost, 
does  not  end  with  the  two  verses  we  have 
considered.  The  name  of  The  Adam,  instead 
of  beino^  continued  throusrh  the  account,  is 
variously  rendered,  the  man,  man,  men, 
men's  or  Adam,  according  to  circumstances, 
to  make  the  record  conform  to  the  errors  in 
the  Genesis  i.  26,  27.  A  critical  mind  dis- 
covering: this  name  in  the  Hebrew  carried 
forward  in  uniformity,  except  where  it  is 
called  Ada^i  simply,  would  naturally  ask 
why  were  these  various  terms  used  to  de- 
note an  individual  ?  In  the  first  place,  they 
do  not  denote  an  individual,  nor  were  tliey 


80  SECOND    POSTULATE. 

intended  to  denote  an  individual.  They 
are  the  offspring  of  the  greater  error. 

The  reader  will  see  by  turning  over  to 
the  chapter  "Eliminations  and  Substitutions 
in  Genesis,"  how  many  transformations  the 
proper  name  The  Adam  has  undergone  in 
the  hands  of  the  translators.  He  will 
also  see  how  beautifully  clear  and  distinct 
the  account  of  the  creation  of  mankind  ap- 
pears when  the  Hebrew  names  are  retained 
in  their  places,  and  the  word  So  no  longer 
chains  the  two  verses  of  Genesis  i.  26,  27 
together  as  a  single  act  of  God.  This  will 
be  seen  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis, corrected  in  these  respects  in  the  end  of 
this  work. 

We  quote  the  definitions  given  by  Web- 
ster for  the  term  man^  so  profusely  used  by 
the  translators : 

1.  Mankind;  the  human  race ;  the  whole 
species  of  human  beings ;  beings  distin- 
guished   from   all   other    animals    by   the 


SECOND    POSTULATE.  81 

powers  of  reason  and  speech,  as  well  as  by 
their  shape  and  dignified  aspect.  When 
opposed  to  ivomcm^  man  sometimes  denotes 
the  male  sex  in  general. 

2.  A  male  individual  of  the  human  race, 
of  adult  growth  or  years. 

3.  A  male  of  the  human  race.  Used 
often  in  compound  words  or  in  the  nature 
of  an  adjective,  as  a  man-child  ;  men-cooks ; 
men-servants. 

4.  A  servant  or  attendant  of  the  male  sex. 

5.  A  word  of  familiar  address. 

6.  It  sometimes  bears  the  sense  of  a  male 
adult  of  some  uncommon  qualifications, 
particularly  the  sense  of  strength,  vigor, 
bravery,  virile  jDOwers,  or  magnanimity,  as 
distinguished  from  weakness,  timidity,  or 
impotence  of  a  boy,  or  from  the  narrow- 
mindedness  of  low-bred  men. 

7.  An  individual  of  the  human  species. 

8.  Man  is  sometimes  opposed  to  boy  or 
child,  and  sometimes  to  beast. 


82  SECOND    POSTULATE. 

9.  One  who  is  master  of  his  mental 
powers,  or  who  conducts  himself  wdth  his 
usual  judgment.  When  a  person  has  lost 
his  senses,  or  acts  without  his  usual  judg- 
ment, we  say  he  is  not  his  own  man. 

10.  It  is  sometimes  used  indefinitely, 
without  reference  to  a  particular  individ- 
ual ;  any  person,  one.  This  is  as  much  as 
a  man  can  desire. 

11.  In  popular  usage,  a  husband. 

12.  A  movable  piece  at  chess  or 
draughts. 

18.  In  feudal  law  a  vassal;  a  liege  sub- 
ject or  tenant. 

From  these  various  definitions  of  man^  it 
will  be  seen  at  once  how  many  construc- 
tions can  be  placed  upon  it.  Instead  of 
using  the  specific  God  name  Adam  for  the 
class  male  and  female,  this  diffused  term 
is  substituted;  and  instead  of  using  the 
name  of  the  individual  man  placed  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  the  same  term  is  used  to 


SECOND   POSTULATE.  83 

denote  him.  Hence  any  of  these  definitions 
can  ^\ath  rhetorical  truth  be  substituted ; 
and  the  question  is,  will  these  substitutions 
be  the  truth  ?  Will  they  convey  the  idea 
that  is  conveyed  by  the  use  of  the  names 
found  in  the  Hebrew  ?  We  think  not,  and 
therefore  by  the  use  of  this  word  man  for 
these  names,  the  translators  have  left  behind 
the  pure  word  of  God,  and  given  to  the 
world  for  a  Bible  what  is  not  the  word  of 
God  in  these  respects. 

We  then  say  that  we  have  clearly  proven, 
both  by  the  Hebrew  text  and  by  the  trans- 
lation, that  there  are  in  both,  two  Adams — 
the  one  being  male  and  female  man^  the 
other  being  the  name  of  an  individual  male 
man;  that  they  have  no  Biblical  connec- 
tion with  each  other.  As  will  be  seen  here- 
after, they  have  been  eliminated  from  their 
proper  places  in  the  translation  by  which 
the  sense  of  the  Genesis  has  been  confused, 
if  not  lost  entirely  from  the  Hebrew  text. 


THIRD  POSTULATE. 

That  Adam,  named  by  God  and  standing  in  the  Hebrew, 
Gen.  i.  26,  for  a  class  male  and  female  man,  was  the 
embodiment  of  the  males  and  females  who  were  the 
heads  of  reproduction  of  the  various  kinds  of  men  and 
women  now  found  on  the  earth,  except  the  Hebrews, 
reproduced  ever  since,  in  accordance  with,  and  carry- 
ing forward  God's  word,  command,  and  law  of  repro- 
duction after  his  hind. 

The  normal  reading  of  tlie  two  verses 
we  have  been  considering,  would  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  there  was  more  intended 
to  be  conveyed  by  all  these  names  and  ex- 
pressions than  the  bringing  into  existence 
of  one  man  and  one  woman.  At  best 
there  is  no  proof  on  the  face  of  them 
that  this  was  all  that  was  done  by  the  two 
acts  there  recorded ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
plain  that  this  was  not  so.  We  believe 
that  there  never  would  have  arisen  even  a 


THIED   POSTULATE.  85 

question  upon  the  subject  of  the  origin  of 
mankind,  if  the  Hebrew  names  and  the 
word  And  had  been  left  in  our  Kino;  James 
translation  where  they  occurred  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  law  of  reproduction  had 
been  applied  to  the  subject.  The  whole 
question  must,  and  should,  be  decided 
purely  upon  Scripture,  and  on  that,  and  on 
that  alone,  we  rely  for  oui^  proofs. 

We  think,  then,  it  can  be  clearly  shown 
from  the  Scripture — 

First.  That  Cain  and  Seth,  sons  of 
Adam  and  Eve,  did  not  marry  their  sisters, 
but  married  Hebrews  not  descended  from 
them. 

Second.  That  the  sons  of  God  mentioned 
in  the  Genesis  vi.  2,  were  neither  Hebrews 
nor  descendants  of  Adam  and  Eve,  but 
were  descendants  of  a  different  hind  of 
people,  whose  head  in  reproduction  is  to  be 
found  in  Adam,  male  and  female^  on  the 
day  of  creation. 


86  THIRD    POSTULATE. 

Third.  That  the  law  of  reproduction 
aftei'  Ms  hindj  is  a  Divine  law,  and  that  its 
violation  was,  and  by  inference  is,  an 
oifence  in  the  sight  of  God. 

Fourth.  That  reproduction  has  been 
confined  within  certain  limits,  even  among 
hinds^  by  the  Mosaic  law  of  prohibition  of 
marriage  of  near  akin,  and  that  that  law 
has  existed  from  the  creation. 

In  support  of  these  positions  we  quote  : 

Gen.  vi.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Ha-Ada]\i,  or  The 
Adam  (of  the  Garden  of  Eden),  l^egan  to  multiply 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were 
born  unto  them. 

Gen.  vi.  2.  That  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters  of 
Ha- Adam,  or  The  Au.V]m,  that  they  were  fair ;  and 
they  took  them  wives  of  all  v»iiich  they  chose. 

Gen.  vi.  B.  And  the  Lord  said,  My  Spirit  shall  not 
always  strive  with  Adam,  for  that  he  also  is 
flenli :  yet  his  days  shall  be  an  hundred  and  twenty 
years. 

Gen.  vi.  4.  And  there  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those 
days ;  and  also  after  that,  when  the  sons  of  God 
came  In  unto  the  daughters  of  Ha-Adam,  or  The 
Adam,  and  they  bare  childi-en  to  them,  the 
same  became  mighty  men  which  were  of  old,  men 
of  renown. 


THIRD    POSTULATE.  8Y 

Gen.  vi.  5.  And  God  saw  that  the  wickedn"ss  of  IIa- 
AD.vii,  or  The  Ad^v^i,  was  great  in  the  earth,  and 
that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  hcait 
was  only  evil  continually ;  and  it  repented  God  that 
Ho  had  made  Ha-xVdam,  or  The  Adam,  on  the  earth, 
and  it  grieved  him  at  His  heart. 

Gen.  vi.  7.  And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy  IIa-Adam, 
or  The  Adam,  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face 
of  the  earth,  from  Adam  unto  beast  and  the  creep- 
ing things,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air ;  for  it  repcnt- 
eth  me  that  I  have  made  them. 

Ill  tlie  first,  second,  and  fourth  verses 
above,  the  translators  have  substituted 
7nen  for  Ha- Ad  am,  or  The  Adam,  found  in 
the  Hebrew.  In  the  third,  fifth,  sixth, 
and  seventh,  they  have  inserted  man  for 
the  same !  We  have  said  enough  about 
mutilation,  and  only  refer  to  the  fact. 
The  question  arises,  was  God  pleased  at 
the  marriage  of  the  daughters  of  Ha- Adam, 
or  The  Adam  of  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
whether  they  were  the  daughters  of  Adam 
and  Eve,  or  whether  they  were  descended 
from  them  ?  We  see  by  this  account  tliat 
He  was  exceedingly  displeased,  even  to  re- 


88  THIED    POSTULATE. 

penting  that  lie  had  made  Ha- Adam,  or 
The  Adam.  There  are  two  points  to  be 
noticed  in  .this  narrative  as  the  cause  of 
God's  anger. 

First.  That  the  sons  of  God  took  wives 
of  the  daughters  of  Ha-Adam  or  The 
Adam;  that  is,  married  them. 

Second.  That  the  daughters  bore  chil- 
dren of  the  sons  of  God. 

This,  God  declared  to  be  a  great  wick- 
edness, and  one  sufficient  to  destroy  the 
Ha- Adams,  or  The  Adams,  by  a  flood.  If, 
then,  Adam  and  Eve  were  the  only  two 
made  on  the  day  of  creation,  and  they 
were  commanded  by  God  to  increase  and 
multiply  and  replenish  the  earth,  why 
should  God  be  so  angered  and  declare  it  a 
wickedness  for  any  of  the  descendants  of 
Adam  and  Eve  to  marry  each  other,  to 
carry  out  His  command,  and  have  children, 
as  in  this  case.  If  the  sons  of  God  were 
the  descendants  of  Adam  and  Eve,  what 


THIRD    POSTULATE.  89 

possible  sin  could  there  have  been  in  obey- 
ing the  command  of  God  ? 

On  the  construction  that  Adam  and  Eve 
were  the  only  paii'  made  on  the  day  of 
creation,  who  were  the  sons  of  God  to 
marry  except  their  daughters  or  their 
descendants  ?  The  simple  act  of  marrying 
or  having  children  under  these  circum- 
stances could  not  have  been  the  sin,  and 
as  sin  was  committed,  and  a  grievous 
sin,  too,  what  did  it  consist  in  ?  What 
law  of  God  did  these  acts  violate  ?  As  the 
sin  is  impossible  in  this  direction,  let  us 
turn  in  another  and  see  if  we  can  discover 
any  command  of  God  that  will  make  such 
an  act  a  sin ;  or  in  other  words,  let  us  see  if 
we  can  discover  a  relationship  that  would 
make  it  so  by  any  declared  law  of  God. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  sons  of  God 
were  not  the  same  hind  of  people  (for  ^ve 
use  the  Scriptural  phrase  and  not  an  ethno- 
logical one),  and  that  their  hind  had  their 


90  THIED    POSTULATE. 

head  in  production  in  tlie  Adam  male  and 
female^  on  the  day  of  creation.  How  will 
this  solve  the  question  ?  Is  there  any  law 
of  God  that  would  make  such  an  act  a 
sin  ?  Is  there  any  law  that  governs  the 
production  of  children?  We  think  there 
is,  and  one  which  has  been  overlooked 
entirely : 

Gen.  i.  24.  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  tJie 
soul  of  life  or  the  limng  creature  after  his  Mnd,  etc. 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  the 
descendants  of  Adam  and  Eve  being 
assumed  as  one  Mnd.,  and  the  sons  of  God 
not  descended  from  Adam  and  Eve,  but 
from  Adam  male  and  female^  another  hind^ 
can  we  see  how,  by  their  marriage  and 
having  children,  this  law  of  reproduction 
was  violated?  If  they  were  of  different 
hinds  of  people,  their  childi-en  would  not 
belong  to  either  hind^  but  would  be  hybrid 
Hebrews  and   liyhrid  sons  of   God.     The 


THIRD    POSTULATE.  91 

cliilclren  not  being  reproduced  after  Ids 
hincl^  would  .be  a  violation  of  the  law  of 
reproduction  as  stated  in  tlie  day  of 
creation. 

In  this  view  of  the  case  it  becomes 
imperative  to  examine  the  law  of  reproduc- 
tion, and  see  whether  it  is  a  Divine  law,  and 
whether  it  was  intended  to  apply  to  man- 
kind. The  constructionists  of  the  unity 
say  No — that  it  was  only  aj)pli cable  to  the 
brute  creations  of  the  sixth  day.  Let  us, 
then,  put  the  law  down,  and  look  at  it, 
read  and  see  what  Moses  says : 

Gen.  i.  24.  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  tlie 
living  creature  or  soul  of  life  after  Ids  hind,  cattle, 
and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  Ms 
Mnd  :  and  it  was  so. 

We  now  ask  any  candid  mind  to  say,  if 
this  was  intended  alone  for  cattle,  beasts  of 
the  earth,  and  creeping  things,  whether 
the  verse  in  the  following  shape  would  not 
cover  entirely  such  a  supposition : 


92  THIRD    POSTULATE. 

Gen.  i.  24.  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the 
cattle  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth 
after  his  kind  :  and  it  was  so. 

♦ 

This  covers  tlie  entire  ground  of  tlie 
brute  creation,  that  they  should  be  brought 
forth  after  Ms  hind.  Then  what  becomes 
of  the  first  portion  of  tlie  verse,  and  of 
what  possible  use  was  it  to  express  this 
idea,  that  while  the  amended  verse  ex- 
presses all  that  the  constructionists  of  the 
unity  require,  there  is  still  a  very  imjDor- 
tant  part  of  the  verse  left  out,  which  they 
do  not  require  and  do  not  w^ant,  nor  have 
they  paid  any  attention  to  it  1  Remember 
that  this  law  stands  at  the  very  head  of 
the  creations  of  the  sixth  day,  wherein 
nothing:  but  livino^  creatures  were  to  be 
brouo:ht  into  existence.  Then  has  Moses 
made  a  mistake  by  making  the  law  cover 
mankind,  or  did  he  intend  it  should  apply 
to  them?  The  constructionists  deny  that  it 
thus  applies,  by  which,  in  substance,  they 


THIRD   POSTULATE.  93 

indicate  that  Moses  has  said  what  lie  did 
not  mean.  For  there  is  no  questioning  the 
fact  that  mankind  are  living  creatures  of 
God. 

Then  we  see  this  law  in  practical  opera- 
tion in  the  various  kinds  of  men  and 
women  reproduced  on  the  earth,  and  have 
been  so  reproduced  duiing  all  knowledge ; 
a  law,  too,  which  every  man  depends  upon 
to  decide  the  character  of  his  j^i'ogeny. 
We  must  ao-ain  record  our  adherence  to 
this  Divine  law  of  God  and  give  it  full 
force  and  scope,  relying  upon  observation 
to  teach  us  what  hinds  mean  when  applied 
to  the  human  race.  No  attempt  shall 
come  from  us  to  contract  the  law  or  mis- 
apply it;  the  only  field  for  its  explanation 
being  found  in  the  unchanging  acts  of  God 
in  this  direction,  the  safest  and  best 
authority  for  any  construction. 

To  our  mind  this  law  is  of  the  same  im- 
portance and  binding  effect  for  observance 


94  THIRD    POSTULATE. 

as  either  of  tlie  ten  commaiidment>s,  or  any 
other  high  moral  law.  To  ignore  it  or 
deny  its  application  is  to  destroy  what  we 
regard  as  the  most  important  law  of  exist- 
ence and  continuance  of  the  human  family, 
displaying  the  supreme  wisdom  of  God. 

The  anger  of  God  at  the  marriage  and 
producing  children  of  the  sons  of  God  by 
the  daughters  of  Ha-Adam,  not  only  seems 
to  prove  the  law  of  reproduction,  but  also 
proves  that  the  sons  of  God  were  not  the 
same  Mnd  of  people  as  the  Hebrews 
Adam  and  Eve,  and  their  descendants. 

For,  His  declaring  it  a  wickedness  shows 
there  was  a  command  and  law  violated, 
and  there  is  no  other  law  that  we  know  of, 
or  can  conceive  of,  that  could  be  violated 
by  any  other  supposition ;  and  as  we  find  a 
law  relating  to  the  production  of  children, 
we  must  conclude  that  this  is  the  law  that 
was  violated.  Hence  the  sons  of  God  were 
not  descendants   of   Adam  and  Eve,  and 


THIRD    POSTULATE.  95 

must  be  accounted  for  as  having  descended 
from  Ada:m  male  and  female,  tlieir  makinix 
beinor  recorded  in  Gen.  i.  26. 

The  marriage  of  Cain  and  Seth  ^vith 
their  sisters  is  a  necessary  consequence  of 
the  human  race  having  descended  from 
Adam  and  Eve.  We  will  see  \v^hether 
such  (to  us  in  this  day)  repulsive  supposi- 
tion is  borne  out  by  Scripture.  The  lec- 
ofd  nowhere  asserts  the  fact,  and  the  idea 
is  a  manism. 

Leviticus  xviii.  1.  And  God  spake  unto  Moses,  saying. 
Leviticus  xviii.  2.  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel  and 

say  unto  them,  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 
Leviticus  xviii.  3.  After    the   doings   of    the    laud   of 

Egypt,  wlierein  ye  dwelt,  shall  ye  not  do  :  and  after 

the  doings  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  whither  I  bring 

you,  shall  ye  7iot  do  :  neither  shall  ye  walk  in  their 

ordinances. 
Leviticus  x^nii.  4.  Ye  shall  do  my  judgments,  and  keep 

mine  ordinances,  to  walk  therein :   I  am  the  Lord. 
Leviticus  xviii.  5.  Ye  shall  therefore  keep  mi/  statutes 

and  my  judgments,  which  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live 

in  them  :  I  am  the  Lord. 
Leviticus  xviii.  6.  No  one  shall  approach  to  any  that  is 

near  of  kin  to  him  to  uncoder  their  nahedness. 


96  THIED   POSTULATE. 

Leviticus  xviii.  9.  The  nakedness  of  thy  sister,  the 
daughter  of  thy  father,  or  daughter  of  thy  mother, 
whether  she  be  born  at  home  or  born  abroad,  even 
their  nakedness  thou  shalt  not  uncover :  for  theirs 
is  thine  own  nakedness. 

Leviticus  xviii.  10.  The  nakedness  of  thy  son's  daugh- 
ter, or  of  thy  daughter's  daughter,  even  their  na- 
kedness thou  shalt  not  uncover  :  for  theirs  is  thine 
own  nakedness. 

Leviticus  xviii.  11.  The  nakedness  of  thy  father's  wife's 
daughter,  begotten  of  thy  father  (she  is  thy  siste?'), 
thou  shalt  not  uncover  her  nakedness. 

Our  space  does  not  allow  of  further  quo- 
tations from  this  chapter,  which  is  filled 
with  denunciations  of  God,  that  it  was 
against  His  statutes  and  judgments  for  near 
akin  to  marry  or  be  given  in  marriage. 
Why  were  these  laws  not  proclaimed 
earlier  than  1490  years  before  Christ? 
The  fair  inference  is  that  they  were  not 
violated  until,  as  recorded,  it  was  done  in 
the  land  of  Egypt. 

Lev.  xviii.  3.  After  the  doings  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
wherein  ye  dwelt,  shall  ye  not  do :  and  after  the 
doings  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  whither  I  bring  you, 
shall  ye  not  do:  neither  shall  ye  walk  in  their 
ordinances. 


THIED    POSTULATE.  97 

Lev.  xviii.  4.  Ye  shall  do  nuj  judgments,  and  keep  my 
ordinances,  to  walk  therein :  I  ain  the  Lord  your 
God. 

Are  the  commands,  judgments,  and  stat- 
utes of  God  variable,  changing,  uncertain, 
and  made  to  fit  circumstances  ?  We  have 
always  been  taught,  and  so  have  read,  that 
they  are  eternal,  from  everlasting  to  ever- 
lasting, unchangeable  and  unchanged.  It 
mattered  not  what  date  they  reached  hu- 
manity: they  were  the  same  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  would  continue  so  to  the  end. 
We  believe  that  all  natural  and  moral  laws 
have  existed  forever,  and  that  their  opera- 
tion commenced  with  the  creation,  and  that 
tRey  will  always  continue.  At  the  same 
time  we  fi-eely  leave  others  to  believe  in 
accordance  with  their  information  and  the 
promptings  of  their  own  consciences. 

We  therefore  conclude  that  the  mar- 
riao-e  of  Cain  or  Seth  with  theii'  sisters  or 
near  akin,  as  laid  down  in  Leviticus  xviii., 

5 


98  THIED    POSTULATE. 

would  liave  been  in  violation  of  God's  com- 
mands, statutes,  and  judgments,  and  that 
lience  He  provided  other  Hebrews  in  the 
creation,  by  which  neither  these  laws  nor 
the  law  of  reproduction  after  his  hiiid 
would  be  violated.  These  Divine  laws 
force  the  construction  of  Gen.  i.  27,  and 
make  it  necessary  that  more  Hebrews  should 
have  been  created  than  Adam  and  Eve,  and 
that  their  creation  must  be  found  in  the 
words  "  male  and  female  created  He  them," 
Gen.  i.  27. 

As  we  have  been  taught,  so  we  believe, 
that  man  is  a  free  agent  to  violate  or  obey 
Divine  statutes,  ordinances,  and  judgments. 
That  his  capability  to  violate  is  based  •in 
Divine  law,  which  gives  him  the  ability  to 
do  so,  equally  with  his  ability  to  obey. 
That  the  choice  lies  with  him  which  laws  of 
God  he  will  obey,  or  which  violate,  what- 
ever he  does  being  done  in  accordance  with 
existing  laws,  moral  or  natural.     It  might 


THIRD    POSTULATE.  99 

be  a  i:)ertineut  inquiry,  if  liybriclity  was  in 
violation  of  the  laws  of  God,  why  did  He 
make  the  law?  The  answer  is  found 
above.  We  might  as  well  ask  the  ques- 
tion. If  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  was 
against  God's  will  or  law,  why  was  the  law 
made  allowing  The  Adam  to  eat  it  ? 

It  is  well  known  what  the  calamitous 
results  to  j)rogeny  are  from  marriages  of 
near  akin  in  hind.  And  it  is  equally  ^vell 
known  that  hybrids  run  to  impotency. 
Then  is  there  nothing  in  these  well-known 
facts  to  assure  us  that  they  are  antagonistic 
to  natural  laws  ?  If  we  will  draw  no  sound 
lesson  from  the  acts  of  God  in  nature,  Avill 
we  refuse  to  regard  them  as  Divine  laws, 
when  we  find  them  laid  down  in  Scripture, 
verified  by  our  daily  experience?  Had  we 
not  better  see  whether  we  have  read  the 
word  aright,  than  discard  the  acts  of  God 
on  our  conceited  reading  ?  While  we  have 
always  seen  these  acts   in  uniformity,  we 


100  THIED   POSTULATE. 

gain  new  ideas  from  reading ;  and  as  is  well 
known,  all  do  not  read  the  Scrij)tures  alike, 
and  hence  we  may  doubt  our  construction 
and  reading  of  Holy  Writ,  but  we  never 
need  doubt  tlie  acts  of  God  we  see  and  know. 
Then,  if  we  do  not  set  aside  this  portion 
of  God's  word,  "  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 
the  living  creature  after  his  kind,"  where 
shall  we  look  for  the  origin  in  the  day  of 
creation  of  the  beginning  of  the  kinds  of  men 
and  women  now  found  on  the  earth,  being 
persistently  reproduced  after  Ms  hindf  If 
this  law  be  regarded  and  received  by  men, 
how  shall  we  apply  it  ?  Can  we  admit  its 
binding  nature,  and  still  give  no  scope  for 
its  foundation  and  operation?  Shall  we 
say  the  law  was  made  and  is  still  in  exist- 
ence, and  deny  the  creation  of  its  subject 
and  its  efficacy  in  Nature  ?  Should  we  not 
rather  search  in  the  creative  account  for 
that  subject,  and  thread  Nature  to  discover 
its  application  ? 


THIRD    POSTULATE.  101 

Tlien,  for  what  purpose  does  Moses  re- 
cord the  making  of  Ada]\i  male  and  female 
man  in  Gen.  i.  26,  and  creating  Tiie  Ada^vi 
and  male  and  female  in  Gen.  i.  27  ?  To  be 
mer2:ed  into  the  making^  of  one  man  and 
one  woman,  whose  progeny,  according  to 
the  law  of  reproduction,  must  be  of  one 
kind,  while  the  various  kinds  of  peoples 
reproduced  in  accordance  with  the  law 
make  the  supposition  a  deadlock  with  it. 

A  law  of  God  can  be  traced  as  truly 
backward  to  the  creation  as  it  ever  worked 
forward  from  it. 

By  restoring  to  our  Bible  the  names 
and  terms  which  God  placed  in  the  orig- 
inal, and  giving  full  scope  and  force  to  the 
law  of  rejDroduction,  we  have  a  beautifully 
consistent  and  true  account  of  the  creation 
of  mankind,  and  of  their  reproduction  to 
the  present  houi\  Whatever  of  kinds  of 
men  and  women  are  now  upon  the  earth, 
each  of  these  kinds  will  be  found  in  origin, 


102  THIRD    POSTULATE. 

in  one  or  tlie  other  of  Gen.  i.  26,  or  Gen.  i. 
27. 

The  flood,  which  has  been  construed  as 
destroying  all  of  the  human  race  excejDt 
Noah  and  his  family,  has  been  the  great 
stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  such  an 
acceptance  of  the  word,  and  j)i'^^^^ly 
was  the  real  author  of  the  eliminations 
and  substitutions  Ave  have  referred  to. 
We  shall  see,  when  we  come  to  this  part  of 
the  subject,  wherein  that  reading  is  not 
borne  out  by  the  record. 

We  then  conclude  that  the  Genesis  i.  26 
was  written  for  information  to  man,  that  a 
class  of  people,  male  and  female,  were 
made  by  God  to  people  the  world.  He 
did  not  leave  them  simply  made  to  take 
care  of  themselves  by  chance,  or  without 
laws  to  empower  them  to  reproduce  them- 
selves. His  inspired  recorder  of  His  acts 
informs  us  that  He  made  them  male  and 
female,  commanded  them  to  increase  and 


O^HIRD    POSTULATE.  103 

multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  also 
tells  us  of  the  command  of  God  in  what 
manner  they  should  evolve  the  progeny 
fi-om  the  parent,  that  the  progeny  should 
be  of  the  kind  of  the  parent,  and  they 
again  should  be  parent  to  other  progeny  of 
the  same  kind.  Thus  chains  of  human 
beino^s  should  extend  from  the  creation  to 
the  end,  each  chain  of  the  same  kind. 
When  vre  have  seen  one  link  in  any  one 
chain,  we  have  substantially  seen  every 
other  link  from  the  beo^inninor  to  the  end. 
No  evolution  fi-om  the  one  -to  the  other 
could  possibly  take  place,  because  the  laws 
of  God  are  unchanging  forever. 


FOUKTH  POSTULATE. 

That  the  Genesis  i.  27  is  devoted  exclusively  to  the  ac- 
count of  the  creation  of  the  heads  of  the  Hebrew 
kind.  That  Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adam,  was  a  male 
created  and  placed  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  with  Eve 
his  wife.  That  there  were  other  male  and  female 
Hebrews  created,  as  recorded  in  the  same  verse.  That 
Noah  and  his  family  became  the  second  heads  of  the 
Adam  and  Eve  line  of  reproduction  after  the  flood. 

The  proof  of  this  postulate  mainly  de- 
pends upon  the  recognition  of  the  Divine 
law  of  reproduction  after  Ms  hind.  If 
this  law,  or  a  law  regulating  reproduction 
of  the  human  species,  be  ignored  and  set 
aside,  we  could  expect  from  Noah  any- 
where and  at  any  time  in  his  line  of  repro- 
duction, the  Negro,  the  Hottentot,  the 
Australian,  the  Mongol,  or  the  Indian. 
And  by  thus  setting  aside  this  law,  any 
one  of  the  advocates  of  the  unity  of  the 
race  could  in  like  manner  be  rewarded  in 


FOURTH   POSTULATE.  105 

tlieii'  little  family  circle.  If  this  could  be 
accoinplislied  by  man,  he  might  then  turn 
his  attention  to  the  vegetable  or  animal 
kingdoms,  and  reproduce  from  any  one  of 
either,  all  others  that  he  might  crave  for 
his  wants. 

While  men  have  practically  denied  this 
law  of  reproduction,  and  have  been  en- 
deavoring to  prove  just  what  we  have 
above  stated  in  respect  to  Noah's  line,  and 
in  order  to  aid  such  proof,  have  b'een  set- 
ting forth  to  the  world  a  garbled  account 
as  of  Moses,  God  has  been  pursuing  His 
uniform,  unchanging  course  in  the  execu- 
tion of  His  creative  law  of  reproduction,  in 
all  the  departments  of  His  creation  to 
which  it  apj)lies.  We  then  give  force, 
vitality,  and  meaning  to  the  law,  and  re- 
gard all  facts  based  uj^on  it  as  truths. 

In  considering  this  postulate,  we  take  the 
Genesis  i.  27,  on  which  it  depends  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  Hebrew,  and  not  as  it  appears 

5* 


106  FOURTH   POSTULATE. 

in  tlie  translation.  If  the  Genesis  i.  26  be 
not  read  as  it  stands  in  the  Hebrew  record 
also,  our  proof  would  fall  to  the  ground. 
The  law  of  reproduction  applying  equally 
to  both,  each  must  be  read  as  a  class  of 
creations  and  makings,  however  small  or 
large  that  class  may  have  been.  The 
machinery  of  the  Genesis  is  so  accurately 
balanced,  that  every  part  must  be  consid- 
ered as  a  whole,  and  complete  as  a  whole, 
or  confusion  is  the  result. 

The  following  facts  as  they  appear  in  the 
record  must  be  admitted. 

First.  That  the  class  Adam,  male  and 
female  man,  were  made  in  Genesis  i.  26. 

Second.  That  Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adam, 
and  the  class  male  and  female,  were  created 
Genesis  i.  27. 

Third.  That  the  making  and  creating 
of  these  two  classes  were  different  acts,  be- 
ing separated  from  each  other  by  the  word 
And. 


FOURTH   POSTULATE.  107 

Fourth.  The  reco2:nition  of  tlie  Divine 
law  of  rejDroduction.  And  God  said,  "  Let 
tlie  eartli  bring  fortli  tlie  living  creature 
after  his  kind." 

Fifth.  To  recognize  the  fact  as  stated  by- 
Moses,  Genesis  v.  1 :  This  is  the  book  of  the 
generations  of  Adam  (the  individual).  In 
the  day  that  God  created  Adam,  in  the  like- 
ness of  God  made  He  him ;  and  that  the 
book  gives  a  true  account,  as  stated,  of  the 
generations  of  Adam. 

No  one  will  deny  that  these  four  points 
are  in  the  Hebrew  record,  the  construc- 
tion which  some  may  put  upon  them 
havino^  no  relation  to  the  fact.  Nor  have 
we  assumed  any  more  premises  than  are  to 
be  found  in  the  pure  word  of  God  in  the 
Hebrew,  though  they  are  quite  different, 
and  would  scarce  be  recognized,  in  the 
translation. 

On  the  fifth  point  hangs  a  very  large 
burden  of   our  proof,  and  we  may  remark 


108  rOUETH   POSTULATE. 

that  in  looking  at  this  declaration,  and 
giving  it  full  scope,  many  things  will  be 
made  clear  and  intelligible  which  otherwise 
would  remain  hidden  or  confused.  The 
true  meaning  of  it  seems  to  be,  "Now 
readers,  take  particular  notice ;  I,  Moses, 
am  going  to  give  in  this  book  an  accurate 
account  of  the  generations  of  Adam  and 
Eve,  and  you  must  not  read  me  that  I  am 
going  to  give  an  account  in  generation  of 
any  one  else."  Then  if  we  credit  him,  we 
must  assume  that  as  far  as  he  gives  an  ac- 
count of  these  generations,  he  did  it  accu- 
rately, and  none  others  are  to  be  assumed 
or  added. 

The  Hebrews  have  generally  been 
arranged  under  the  Caucasian  head. 
From  all  that  we  can  gather  from  the 
Bible  and  other  sources  of  information,  we 
think  the  Hebrew  Mnd  is  one  of  the  kinds 
intended  in  the  Divine  law  of  reproduction. 
They   have  always  been,  and  are  at  this 


FOURTH   POSTULATE.  109 

day,  a  distinct  people,  botli  in  cliaracter  and 
in  reproduction.  We  think  this  is  the  gen- 
erally received  opinion,  and  more  especially 
of  the  Jews,  a  conventional  branch  of  the 
Hebrews. 

This  people  are  the  chosen  of  God,  and 
why?  The  reason  for  the  choice  cannot  be 
assigned,  but  what  has  been  done  with  and 
through  them  can  be  gleaned  from  their 
history,  threaded  through  the  Old  and  into 
the  New  Testament.  The  representative 
man  of  the  Hebrew  kind  in  the  day  of  cre- 
ation was  Ha-Ada3i,  or  The  Adam  j^laced 
in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  After  God  had 
made  mankind  upon  the  earth,  it  became 
necessary  that  he  should  manifest  Him- 
self to  them  in  some  way,  to  accomplish 
the  end  of  their  creation.  To  do  this  He 
chose  Adam  and  Eve,  and  placed  them  in 
the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  from  all  we  can 
learn  to  manifest  Himself  to  them,  and 
teach  them  His  Divine  will  or  law. 


110  FOURTH   POSTULATE. 

He  did  so ;  He  proclaimed  His  law,  and  the 
penalty  for  its  violation.  The  law  was  vio- 
lated and  the  penalty  followed.  If,  then, 
His  specially  created  and  chosen  pair  could 
not  withstand  temptation,  what  could  He 
expect  others,  not  so  favored,  would  do 
under  like  circumstances.  Through  this 
pair  and  their  progeny.  His  design  evidently 
was  to  publish  to  mankind  His  moral  laws, 
to  reflect  Himself  and  His  attributes  to  all 
generations  of  men.  What  was  applicable 
to  them  was  to  be  alike  applicable  to  all ; 
what  was  to  be  their  happiness  in  obedi- 
ence, was  to  be  the  happiness  of  all  created ; 
what  their  penalties  for  disobedience,  were 
the  penalties  to  all. 

He  sjDoke  the  universal  word  to  mankind, 
when  He  spoke  to  one  man  and  one  woman 
chosen  for  that  purpose.  What  He  com- 
manded to  them,  He  commanded  to  all — 
what  He  promised  to  them.  He  promised  to 
all ;  what  He  wished  of  them,  He  wished  of 


FOUETH  POSTULATE.  Ill 

all ;  in  fine,  that  they  were  the  chosen  rep- 
resentatives of  the  human  family,  to  wit- 
ness the  presence  of  God,  and  receive  from 
Him  the  command  of  obedience  to  His  will, 
and  the  results  of  that  test  were  to  apply 
equally  to  all  men. 

We  do  not  suppose  that  our  individual 
theology  will  square  with  most  received 
theologies,  but,  in  our  crude  way,  this  Is 
the.  substance  of  what  we  gather  from  the 
record.  Nor  is  it  expected  to  agree  with 
any  theology  founded  upon  a  single  pas- 
sage of  Scripture.  It  would  be  truly  a 
great  discovery,  if  any  one  should  be  able 
to  harmonize  the  various  views  and  con- 
structions which  are  claimed  to  be  founded 
on  the  word  of  God.  We  do  not  wish  to 
be  considered  as  laying  down  any  particu- 
lar theology,  or  endeavoring  to  support 
one.  All  we  propose  to  do  is,  to  state 
facts  found  in  the  inspii'ed  Hebrew  record, 
which   we   believe   exactly   in   accordance 


112  FOURTH    POSTULATE. 

with  those  facts,  leaving  others  to  exercise 
the  free  will  that  God  has  given  them  to 
accept  or  reject  them;  to  act  in  conform, 
ity  to  them,  or  ignore  them.  This  is  the 
principle  of  the  privilege  which  God  gave 
to  Adam  and  Eve  and  to  all  mankind. 

We  have  shown,  we  think,  clearly,  in  the 
previous  postulate,  that  Cain  could  not 
have  married  his  sister  ^vdthout  violation 
of  Divine  statutes  and  judgments,  of  the 
Levitical  law  of  marriao-e  of  near  akin. 
But  we  propose  now  to  show  that  he  could 
not  have  married  his  sister,  because,  when 
he  was  married,  no  such  being  existed. 

Gen.  iv,  16.  And  Cain  went  out  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord,  and  dwelt  in  the  Land  of  Nod,  on  the 
east  of  Eden. 

Gen.  iv.  17.  And  Cain  knew  his  wife,  and  she  con- 
ceived and  bare  Enoch,  and  he  builded  a  city,  and 
called  the  name  of  the  city  after  the  name  of  his 
son,  Enoch. 

If  Moses  had  not  closed  the  subject  of 
the  daughters  of  Adam  and  Eve,  our 
imagination  might  have  supplied  one  for 


FOURTH   POSTULATE.  113 

the  ^yife  of  Cain.  •  But  the  first  mention  of 
daughters  to  them  is  recorded : 

Gen.  V.  4.  And  the  days  of  Ad.vm,  after  he  had  be- 
gotten Seth,  were  eight  hundi'ed  years,  and  he 
begat  sons  and  daughters. 

No  daughters  were  therefore  recorded  as 
born  to  Adam  and  Eve,  until  after  the 
birth  of  Seth ;  and  how  long  after,  the  rec- 
ord does  not  state.  We  do  not  intend  to 
be  so  narrow,  as  to  claim  that  every  one 
of  Adam  and  Eve's  generations  are  laid 
down  in  the  book ;  but  we  do  hold,  that  as 
far  as  Moses  did  record  them,  the  record  is 
true.  He  having  pointedly  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  he  was  giving  the  gen- 
erations of  The  Adam,  is  it  justice  even  to 
a  common  historian  to  interpolate  upon  his 
work  others  whom  he  does  not  mention; 
and,  still  more,  is  it  for  any  one  professing 
to  be  a  believing  Christian  in  the  accuracy 
of  revelation,  to  add  as  against  the  exjDress 
warning  of  the  inspired  \\Titer  ? 


114  FOUETH   POSTULATE. 

Who,  then,  will  assume  to  force  into  the 
word  of  God,  daughters  of  The  Adam,  be- 
fore the  inspired  writer  informs  us  they 
were  born  unto  him?  Moses,  in  his  step- 
ping aside  from  this  narrative,  has  warned 
his  readers  not  to  insert  in  his  record,  be- 
cause he  declares  what  he  says  is  the  record 
of  the  generations  of  The  Adam.  The 
construction  of  the  unity  of  the  race  upon 
the  mutilations  we  have  seen,  requires  that 
Cain  should  have  married  a  daughter  of 
Adam  and  Eve,  when,  by  the  authority  of 
Moses,  no  such  daughter  had  been  born. 
Are  such  constructions  and  teachings  cal- 
culated to  inspire  confidence  in  the  truth  of 
Holy  "Writ,  and  hence  to  advance  the  cause 
of  Christianity  ?  We  think  not. 

Further  than  this,  Cain  not  only  married 
his  wife,  but  builded  a  city  before  daugh- 
ters were  born  unto  Adam  and  Eve  ;  so 
says  the  record  in  chronological  order  of 
statements.    The  matter  resolves  itself  into 


rOURXn   POSTULATE.  115 

tills  :  that  Moses  says  Cain  did  marry  a 
woman  in  the  land  of  Nod,  east  of  Eden. 
He  also  says,  Adam  and  Eve  had  no  daugh- 
ters born  at  that  time.  The  question  arises, 
who  did  he  marry  ?  The  constructionists 
of  the  unity  of  the  race  say  that  he  married 
a  dau2:hter  of  Adam  and  Eve.  As  the  dis- 
pute  is  between  them  and  Moses,  we  shall 
not  interfere,  but  simply  pass  on  and 
record  our  belief  that  he  married  a  Hebrew 
woman  created  for  that  purpose,  in  the 
class  of  Gen.  i.  27 :  "  Male  and  female 
created  He  them,"  in  order  that  he  should 
reproduce  Hebrews  after  his  kind. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  record  as  to  the 
creation  of  the  Hebrew  kind. 

Gen.  i.  27.  Axd  God  created  Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adam, 
in  His  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He 
him.     Male  and  female  created  He  them. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  considering  the  law 
of  reproduction,  that  The  Adaji  was  the 
representative   man   of   the  Hebrew  kind, 


116  FOUETH   POSTULATE. 

and  Avas  therefore  a  Hebrew  himself.  That 
Eve  was  the  representative  woman  of  the 
same  kind,  and  therefore  a  Hebrew  woman. 
Their  generations  were  consequently  He- 
brews. Cain  was  a  Hebrew,  Seth  was  a 
Hebrew,  and  Noah  and  his  family  were 
Hebrews,  because  their  generations  are 
traceable  through  the  Old  and  into  the 
New  Testament,  where  they  are  recognized 
as  Hebrews,  or  Jews,  the  same  thing  in 
reproduction. 

Let  any  normal  reader  take  up  the 
Genesis  i.  27,  without  ever  having  heard 
any  construction  put  upon  it,  and  what 
would  be  his  reading  of  it  ?  Would  he  gain 
the  idea  that  it  meant  the  creation  of  one 
man  and  one  woman  ?  We  think  not. 
But  that  opinion  is  of  no  account,  without 
we  can  show  why.  In  the  first  place, 
suppose  there  was  only  this  much  of 

Gen.  i.  27.  And  God  created  The  Adam  in  His  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  Mm. 


FOURTH   POSTULATE.  117 

Would  there  be  a  consistent  and  com- 
plete idea  presented  to  the  reader  ?  Would 
this  be  an  act  of  creation  complete  in 
itself,  and  would  it  be  sufficient  to  declare 
and  make  intelligible  the  creation  of  The 
Adam  ?  Would  not  the  idea  conveyed  be 
as  clear  as  that  in 

Gen,  V.  1 .  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of  Adam. 
In  the  day  that  God  created  ADA:Nr,  in  the  likeness 
of  God  made  He  him. 

We  think  the  idea  is  clear,  and  the 
creation  complete  by  the  announcement. 
If  this  be  so,  then  The  Adam  was  created 
as  stated,  and  that  creation  was  complete. 
Now,  what  else  was  done?  "Male  and 
female  created  He  them."  Is  the  account 
true  or  untrue?  Was  male  and  female 
created  also  as  stated,  or  were  they  not  ? 
The  account  says  they  were ;  we  therefore 
believe  it,  and  so  say  that  The  Ada:\[  was 
created,  and  he  was  a  male  creation ;  and, 
in  addition,  male  and  female  were .  created. 


118  FOUETH  POSTULATE. 

But  the  constructionists  of  the  unity  say, 
"  That  The  Adam  was  created  to  be  sure 
as  The  Adam,  but  afterwards  as  the  male^ 
for  this  verse  only  calls  for  the  creation  of 
one  man  and  one  woman."  That  is,  that 
The  Adam  was  created  tivice^  and  the 
woman  once.  As  we  said  in  the  case  of 
Cain,  this  is  a  question  between  them  and 
the  record ;  they  have  the  right  to  accept  it 
or  reject  it.  All  we  claim  is  the  right  to 
read  it  as  it  stands,  and  believe  it  accord- 
ingly ;  and  consequently,  we  record  our  be- 
lief in  the  accuracy  of  it,  and  say  that  God 
created  The  Adam,  and  that  He  also  created 
the  Class :  "  Male  and  female  created  He 
them."  That  every  word  in  the  Genesis  i. 
27  stands  for  a  meaning  of  itself;  that 
there  is  no  repetition  or  tautology;  that 
there  was  no  work  of  God  done  over  twice, 
and  Moses  meant  just  what  he  said  in  the 
record. 

These  being  Hebrews,  furnished  Hebrew 


FOURTn   POSTULATE.  110 

women  for  wives  of  Cain  and  Setli,  and 
their  generations  wives  and  husl^ands  for 
the  generations  of  Adajh  and  Eve,  to  carry 
out  the  law  of  reproduction,  and  not  vio- 
late the  prohibitory  law  laid  down  in 
Leviticus,  of  marriage  of  near  akin.  Nor 
do  we  pretend  to  say  how  many  Hebrews 
were  made  in  the  beginning,  but  we  have 
sufficient  confidence  in  the  wisdom  of  God 
to  believe  that  He  made  as  many  as  was 
necessary  to  carry  out  His  design  of  crea- 
tion without  scrimping  Himself  to  such 
numbers  as  would  cause  the  violation  of 
His  fundamental  laws  on  the  very  thresh- 
old of  creation. 

While  Genesis  i.  27  gives  the  account  of 
the  creation  of  Adam  and  Eve,  the  specifica- 
tion of  the  mode  and  manner  of  their  making 
is  recorded  in  another  part  of  Scripture  : 

Gen.  ii.  7.  And  the  Lord  God  formed  R\-AD-N3r,  or  The 
Adam,  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ;  and  The  \dx}I 
became  a  livincc  soul. 


120  FOURTH   POSTULATE. 

Gen.  ii.  22.  And  the  rib,  which  the  Lord  God  had 
taken  from  The  Adaji,  made  He  a  woman,  and 
brought  her  unto  The  Adam. 

Gen.  ii.  23.  And  The  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone  of 
my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she  shall  be 
called  Woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  man. 


As  a  verification  of  the  law  of  reproduc- 
tion applying  to  tlie  human  race,  we  see 
the  expression  used  when  The  Adam  was 
made^  in  Genesis  ii.  7,  namely,  that  he 
"  became  a  living  souV  The  expression 
in  the  Hebrew  in  that  law  is,  "  the  soul  of 
life."  If  there  is  any  difference,  we  cannot 
apprehend  it.     • 

It  is  conceded  that  The  Adam  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden  was  the  first  man  made 
on  "the  day  of  creation.  Enough,  however, 
for  us  to  know,  to  gain  a  correct  under- 
standing as  to  the  fact  as  laid  down  in  the 
record,  that  he  was  made  on  the  sixth  day  ; 
and  his  creation  is  recorded  in  Genesis  i. 
27,  and  the  manner  of  making  Adam  and 
Eve  is  recorded  in  Genesis  ii.  7,  22.     The 


FOURTH   POSTULATE.  121 

general  scope  of  tlie  reading  of  Genesis  i. 
26  would  indicate  that  when  God  said, 
Let  us  make  Adam  male  and  female  man, 
that  all  were  included  in  the  class  except 
the  Hebrews,  and  that  the  separate  record 
of  the  creation  of  Tile  Adam,  and  male  and 
female,  apj)lied  to  the  chosen  people  of  God. 
If  we  will  not  place  our  own  judgments 
and  constructions  superior  to  the  word  of 
God,  we  have  sufficient  here  to  satisfy  all 
the  phenomena  connected  with  the  human 
race.  We  need  not  vaunt  ourselves  that 
we  can  explain  or  understand  all^  but  we 
can  read  the  word  of  God  as  given  to  us, 
and  as  it  stands^  and  be  thankful  that  He 
has  thus  far  revealed  His  ways  and  His 
works,  that  we  may  glean  a  few  rays  of 
lio'ht  to  show  us  the  outlines  of  His  crea- 
tion,  and  cause  us  to  know  the  source  from 
whence  we  came.  He  has  also  given  us  eyes 
to  see  and  ears  to  hear.  Let  us  use  the  former 
to  verify,  but  not  to  destroy.  His  word. 

6 


FIFTH  POSTULATE. 

That  the  Hebrew  Genesis  records  the  destruction  by  flood 
of  the  generations  of  Adam  and  Eve,  except  Noah 
and  his  family,  but  nothing  more  of  the  human  crea- 
tion. 

The  construction  that  has  been  put  upon 
this  portion  of  the  Genesis  is,  that  the  flood 
was  universal  over  the  whole  face  of  the 
earth,  and  destroyed  everything  on  it  ex- 
cept what  was  preserved  in  the  ark.  This, 
however,  is  the  broad  and  careless  reading 
of  the  account.  What  was  to  be  destroyed, 
and  what  was  destroyed,  were  defined  so 
clearly,  and  the  limits  of  destruction  so 
plainly  laid  down  by  the  inspired  writer, 
that  when  they  are  pointed  out  they  are 
unmistakable;  and,  in  our  opinion,  there 
should  be  but  one  conclusion  as  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  flood. 


FIFTH    POSTULATE.  123 

Nor  do  the  constructionists  of  the  unity 
of  the  race  claim  more  in  respect  to  the 
destruction  of  mankind  than  that  the  gen- 
erations of  Ada3I  and  Eve  were  so  de- 
stroyed, since  they  claim  there  were  no 
other  people  on  the  face  of  the  whole 
earth.  That  God,  in  order  to  destroy  the 
few  people  laid  do^vn  by  Moses  as  the 
generations  of  Ada^i  and  Eat: — knotted 
together  as  they  always  were  till  after 
theii*  dispersion  from  the  tower  of  Babel — 
should  thus  destroy  all  His  created  work  in 
the  two  hemispheres  to  accomj^lish  this  ob- 
ject, to  say  the  least,  according  to  our  ways 
of  thinking,  was  unnecessary,  and  a  waste 
of  creative  wisdom. 

Moses,  in  his  accuracy  of  the  record  of 
the  destruction,  has,  however,  relieved  God 
and  the  account  of  any  such  supposition. 
The  j)oint,  then,  of  difference  between  the 
constructionists  of  the  unity  and  their  op- 
ponents respecting  the  flood  is,  whether  it 


124  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

was  universal  over  the  face  of  the  lohole 
earthy  both  agreeing  that  the  descendants 
of  Adam  and  Eve  were  destroyed,  except 
Noah  and  his  family,  and  everything  in 
their  connection  necessary  to  such  destruc- 
tion. 

Then  the  question  resolves  itself  into 
this :  Moses  having  given  an  account  of  the 
creating  of  other  j)eoples  than  Adam  and 
Eve,  and  given  an  account  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  generations  of  the  latter  by  say- 
ing that  they  were  to  be  destroyed  for  cer- 
tain specific  reasons,  and  winding  up  the 
account  by  declaring  that  they  were  de- 
stroyed— whether  man  would  be  justified 
in  putting  into  that  destruction  jDeoples  who 
were  not  to  be  destroyed  and  who  are  not 
named  in  the  list  destroyed.  The  question 
is  not  as  open  in  the  record  as  this,  even, 
for  the  destruction  is  confined  within  very 
narrow  limits,  which  no  invention  or  sophis- 
try of  man  can  expand. 


FIFTH    POSTULATE.  125 

What  are  those  limits  ? 

Gen.  V.  1.  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of  Adam. 
In  the  clay  that  God  created  Adam,  in  the  likeness 
of  God  made  He  him. 

Gen.  vi.  7.  ^Vnd  God  said,  I  will  destroy  Ha-Adam,  The 
Adam,  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  of  the 
earth;  from  Adam  unto  beast,  and  the  creeping 
thing,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air;  for  it  repenteth 
me  tliat  I  have  made  them. 

Gen.  vii.  21.  And  all  flesh  died  that  moved  upon  the 
earth,  both  of  fowl,  and  of  cattle,  and  of  beast, 
and  of  every  creeping  thing  that  creepetli  upon 
the  earth,  and  every  Ha-Adam,  or  The  Adam. 

If  there  ever  was  a  glaring  error  foisted 
upon  the  world  by  translators,  it  occurs 
just  here  in  the  account  of  the  flood.  By 
referring  to  the  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis, 
in  the  latter  end  of  this  book,  the  reader 
will  see  the  unwarrantable  use  made  of 
the  word  man^  instead  of  the  name  Ha- 
Adam  or  The  Adam.  These  two  verses 
above  read  in  the  translation  thus : 

Gen.  vi.  7.  And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy  man 
whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  of  tlie  earth ; 
both  man,  and  beast,  and  the  creeping  thing,  and 


126  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

the  fowls  of  the  air;  for  it  repenteth  me  that  I 
have  made  them. 
Gen.  vii.  21.  And  all  flesh  died  that  moved  upon  the 
earth,  both  of  fowl,  and  of  cattle,  and  of  beast, 
and  of  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth,  and  every  man. 


Sucli  a  wide  departure  from  the  word  of 
God  would  make  tlie  blood  tingle  in  the 
veins  of  every  Christian  on  its  discovery. 
'No  man  will  deny  that  The  Adam  is  not 
in  the  original  inspiration  in  these  verses, 
nor  that  man  is  substituted  for  it  in  the 
translation.  Now  what  effect  is  produced 
upon  our  Bible  by  the  use  of  the  word  man 
for  The  Adam.  If  God,  in  His  wisdom, 
made  more  men  and  women  in  the  begin- 
ning than  Adam  and  Eve,  the  translation 
declares  that  every  man  was  destroyed,  in- 
stead of  every  descendant  of  Adam  and 
Eve,  or  The  Adaiii,  as  the  record  is.  This 
flatly  denies  the  Mosaic  account,  if  more 
were  made  in  the  beginning  than  Adam 
and  Eve,  while  it  makes  good  the  construe- 


FIFril    POSTULATE.  127 

tion  of  the  unity  of  the  race,  since  Noah 
would,  in  accordance  with  that  construc- 
tion, be  the  second  head  of  the  human 
family. 

Hence  we  see  that  the  translators,  in- 
stead of  foUowino^  the  Hebrew  in  its  names 
and  terms,  start  out  from  Gen.  i.  26  U'ith 
the  idea  of  a  unity  of  the  race,  and  make 
eveiy  portion  of  the  Genesis  conform  to 
that  idea,  even  to  the  elimination  of  words 
and  the  substitution  of  others  to  accom- 
plish it.  They  have  well  and  thoroughly 
performed  their  task  in  this  respect,  but 
have  done  so  at  the  expense  of  the  pure 
word  of  God,  which  they  have  left  behind. 
They  have  eliminated  one  of  His  principal 
acts  in  creation.  They  have  dropped  God 
names  from  the  account,  and  substituted 
their  manisms,  and  finally,  to  crown  their 
work,  have  erased  from  the  record  of  the 
flood  its  vital  essence,  and  made  it  conform 
to  their  other  eliminations  and  substitutions. 


128  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

It  would  be  unfortunate  if  tlie  record  of 
the  flood  was  to  be  adjudged  upon  isolated 
passages.  It  must  be  taken  as  a  whole,  and 
judged  of  by  what  was  to  be  destroyed  and 
what  was  so  destroyed.     For  example  : 

Gen.  vi.  13.  And  God  said  unto  Noali,  The  end  of  all 
flesh  is  come  before  me  ;  for  the  earth  is  filled  with 
violence  through  them ;  and,  behold,  I  will  destroy 
them  witli  the  earth. 

No  one  would  construe  that  "the  end  of 
all  flesh  is  come  "  meant  precisely  what  it 
says,  because  that  would  involve  the  total 
destruction  of  mankind,  when  we  know 
that  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved.  '^  I 
will  destroy  them  with  the  earth  "  certainly 
does  not  mean  that  God  destroyed  the 
earth,  or  intended  to  do  so.  The  limits  of 
the  destruction  were  clearly  marked  out  by 
Moses  in  the  Genesis  v.  1,  Gen.  vi.  7,  and 
Gen.  vii.  21.  Who  will  then  add  or  j^ut 
into  the  account  more  than  the  inspired 
writer   has  done,  or  who  will  spread   the 


FIFTH   POSTULATE.  129 

boundaries  of  the  flood  farther  than  he  has 
done,  to  accomplish  the  end  intended  ? 

If  he  says  the  descendants  of  Adam  and 
Eve  were  to  be,  and  were,  destroyed,  Avho 
will  add  other  people,  if  they  existed, 
which  we  think  the  account  j)lainly  calls 
for?  Moses  seems  to  have  apprehended 
this  very  difEerently  when  he  announces 
that  ''  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations 
of  Adam,"  etc.  As  much  as  to  say,  "there 
are  other  people,  and  you  must  understand 
that  I  am  only  wiiting  about  the  genera- 
tions of  The  Adam,  and  what  I  say  must  he 
confined  to  them."  If  there  had  not  been 
others  on  the  earth,  of  what  use  would  be 
the  warning,  as  it  would  follow,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  that  he  wrote  of  The  Adam  ? 

If  the  inhabitants  of  London  were  to  be 
destroyed  by  Divine  edict  in  like  manner, 
and  the  historian  had  headed  the  account, 
telling  the  world  that  he  was  going  to  re- 
late not  only  the  causes,  but  give  a  full  ac- 


130  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

count  of  the  transaction,  would  we  under- 
stand him  correctly  if  he  said  all  flesh  was 
destroyed  and  everything  else  except  eight 
individuals,  who  were  excluded  from  the 
destruction,  and  some  animals  ?  Suppose, 
too,  that  he  used  broader  language  than 
the  description  required,  would  that  lan- 
guage, although  meant  to  be  in  exact  ac- 
cordance with  facts,  destroy  more  than  was 
destroyed,  or  was  proclaimed  as  to  be 
destroyed  ? 

We  therefore  conclude  that  the  flood  did 
no  more  in  the  way  of  destruction  than  is 
stated  by  Moses,  namely :  that  it  was 
brought  on  to  destroy  the  descendants  of 
Adam  and  Eve,  except  Noah  and  his  fam- 
ily, and  that  it  did  what  it  was  commis- 
sioned to  do,  and  no  more.  If  Moses  had 
said,  as  the  translators  have  it,  that  it 
destroyed  every  man  except  Noah  and  his 
family,  Noah  would  at  once  become  the 
head  of  the  human  race,  and  we  should  lay 


FIFTH    POSTULATE.  131 

down  our  pen.  But  as  it  is,  wlioevei*  Las 
^vl•itten  every  man  in  God's  record,  instead 
of  every  The  Adam,  has  given  a  very  in- 
accurate idea  of  wliat  is  contained  in  the 
Hebrew.  He  has  eliminated  God\s  ^vord, 
and  substituted  his  manism,  and  the  Chris- 
tian world  have  been  reading  it  under  a 
false  meaning. 

Now,  let  us  examine  the  record  as  to 
what  disposition  was  made  of  Noah,  his 
family,  and  their  generations,  and  see  if 
there  were  not  other  people  and  other  na- 
tions than  the  Hebrews  existing  immedi- 
ately after  the  flood.  From  the  tenor  of 
this  record,  it  would  seem  that  God  deter- 
mined to  disperse  the  Hebrews  through- 
out the  ^vorld,  and  especially  after  they  had 
manifested  an  intention  of  building  a  city 
for  themselves  '  and  a  tower  that  would 
make  them  conspicuous. 

Gen.  xi.  3.  And  they  said  one  to  another,  Go  to,  let  us 
make  brick,  and  Inirnthem  thoroug'hly.  And  they 
had  brick  for  stone,  and  slime  had  they  for  mortar. 


132  FIFTH    POSTULATE. 

Gen.  xi.  4.  And  they  said,  Go  to,  let  us  build  a  city  and 
a  tower,  whose  top  may  reach  unto  heaven ;  and 
let  us  make  us  a  name,  lest  we  be  scattered  abroad 
upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth. 

Gen.  xi.  5.  And  the  Lord  came  down  to  see^the  city 
which  the  children  of  Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adajm  (by 
translators,  men),  buildcd. 

Gen.  xi.  6.  And  the  Lord  said.  Behold,  the  people  is 
one,  and  they  have  all  one  language ;  and  this  they 
begin  to  do :  and  now  nothing  will  be  restrained 
from  them,  which  they  have  imagined  to  do. 

Gen.  xi.  7.  Go  to,  let  us  go  down,  and  there  confound 
their  language,  that  they  may  not  understand  one 
another's  speech. 

Gen.  xi.  8.  So  the  Lord  scattered  them  abroad  from 
thence  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth :  and  they 
left  off  to  build  the  city. 

Gen.  xi.  9.  Therefore  is  the  name  of  it  called  Babel ;  be- 
cause the  Lord  did  there  confound  the  language 
of  all  the  earth :  and  from  thence  did  the  Lord 
scatter  them  abroad  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth. 

Tlie  whole  tenor  of  these  seven  verses  is 
a  comparison  with  other  peoples  and  with 
other  things.  "  Go  to,  let  us  make  brick." 
"  Go  to,  let  us  build  a  city."  "  Let  us 
make  a  name."  And  why?  Lest  we  be 
weakened  and  made  unable  to  make  our- 
selves equals  with  others,  by  being  "  scat- 
tered abroad  upon  the  face  of  the  whole 


FIFTH   POSTULATE.  133 

earth."  It  ^vould  be  a  self-evident  fact,  that 
if  there  were  no  other  peoples  on  the  earth 
beside  Noah  and  his  family,  and  their  im- 
mediate descendants,  that  they  would  have 
one  language.  It  would  be  unnecessary  to 
state  that  fact,  excej^t  language  was  to  be 
a  means  of  accomplishing  the  end  which 
God  had  in  view. 

And  what  is  language  ?  The  definition 
is  plainly  given  in  Gen.  xi.  7  :  Go  to,  let  us 
go  down,  and  there  confound  their  lan- 
guage, that  tliey  may  not  understand  one 
anotlier''s  speech.  Hence,  language,  Script- 
urally,  means  the  ability  to  communicate 
one  with  another  by  language,  or  speech. 
From  this  we  can  determine  the  grounds 
and  reasons  for  this  act  of  God  towards 
the  Hebrews.  First,  He  would  arrest  the 
building  of  their  city  and  tower  by  con- 
founding their  language,  that  they  could 
not  communicate  with  each  other ;  and  sec- 
ond, in  theii'  dispersion  over  the  earth,  that 


134  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

He  gave  them  otlier  languages,  that  they 
might  be  able  to  communicate  with  those 
Avho  spoke  the  languages  given  to  them. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  became  of  Japheth, 
one  of  the  sons  of  Noah,  according  to  this 
distribution.  After  giving  his  generations 
in  Gen.  x.  2,  3,  4,  we  find : 

Gen.  X.  5.  By  these  were  the  isles  of  the  Gentiles  di- 
vided in  their  lands :  every  one  after  his  tongue, 
after  their  families,  in  their  nations. 

Who  were  the  Gentiles,  and  why  are 
they  found  in  nations  so  soon  after  the 
flood  that  the  sons  of  JajDheth  should  be 
sent  among  them,  "every  one  after  his 
tongue,  after  their  families,  in  their  na- 
tions "  ?  The  Gentiles  here  are  like  the 
sons  of  God  in  Gen.  vi.  2  :  peoples  evi- 
dently not  Hebrews,  or  descendants  of 
Adam  and  Eve. 

The  constructionists  of  the  unity  of 
the  race  will  tell  you  that  the  expression 
"  isles  of  the  Gentiles  "  does  not  mean  that 


FIFTH   POSTULATE.  135 

the  Gentiles  occupied  those  islands  at  that 
time,  but  that  they  did  occupy  them  after- 
wards, and  before  Moses  ^vi'ote  the  account. 
The  normal  reading  is  clear  that  the  Gen- 
tiles owned  the  islands  if  they  did  not  oc- 
cupy them,  and  the  general  reading  would 
be  that  they  occupied  them.  Is  this  read- 
ing contradicted  by  any  other  passage  of 
Scripture  ?  We  think  not ;  and  hence  we 
must  take  Moses  at  his  word,  and  give  this 
passage  its  full  force.  By  doing  this, 
doubtful  passages  in  conflict  must  yield. 

Similar  disposition  was  made  of  the  sons 
of  Ham : 

Gen.  X.  20.  These  are  the  sons  of  Ham,  after  their 
families,  after  their  tongues,  in  their  countries,  and 
in  their  nations. 

And,  finally,  the  disposition  of  the  sons 
of  Shem,  under  the  same  decree  of  God  : 

Gen.  X.  31.  These  are  the  sons  of  Shem,  after  their 
families,  after  their  tongues,  in  their  lands,  after 
their  nations. 


136  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

And  now  comes  the  summing  uj>  of  this 
whole  matter  of  the  distribution  of  the  He- 
Ijrews  after  the  flood,  consequent  upon  their 
attempt  to  establish  a  nation  of  themselves : 

Gen.  X.  32.  These  are  tlie  families  of  the  sons  of  Noah, 
after  their  generations,  in  their  nations  :  and  hy  these 
were  the  nations  divided  in  the  earth  after  the  flood. 

There  is  but  one  plain  proposition  in 
respect  to  this  passage :  Could  anything 
be  divided  that  did  not  exist  ?  Can  this  ex- 
pression be  warped  by  any  possible  means 
into  the  following,  which  is  what  is  claimed 
it  should  be  on  the  construction  of  the  unity 
of  the  race  ? — 

"These  are  the  families  of  the  sons  of 
Noah,  after  their  generations,  in  their  na- 
tions :  andfroin  these  did  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  spring  after  the  floods 

Moses  clearly  declares  mathematically 
that  there  was  a  divisor  and  a  dividend. 
The  divisor  being  the  families  of  the  sons 
of   Noah,  and  the  dividend  being  the  na- 


FIFTH    POSTULATE.  137 

tions  of  the  earth.  Now,  if  there  was  no 
dividend  (nations  of  the  earth),  how  could 
there  have  been  a  divisor ;  or  if  there  were 
no  nations  in  the  earth,  why  divide  ? 

We  cannot  imagine  language  more  clear, 
definite,  and  conclusive  than  this,  to  express 
what  was  the  evident  intention  of  God  in 
confusing  the  language  of  the  Hebrews 
at  the  tower  of  Babel ;  the  language  dele- 
gated or  assigned  to  each  allotment  being 
the  guide  of  division  of  the  nations  of  tlie 
earth,  by  the  generations  of  Noah.  There 
would  be  no  difficulty  in  understanding 
this  division,  were  it  not  for  the  construc- 
tion of  the  unity ;  on  that  construction  it 
has  no  positive  meaning,  except  the  one 
usually  assigned  to  it,  that  these  people 
were  distributed  upon  the  earth,  but  the 
nations  into  which  they  were  sent  ai'e  en- 
tirely ignored.  Even  the  Gentiles  are  denied 
existence  at  that  time,  although,  from  the 
language,  we  would  infer  that  they  inhal)- 


138  FIFTH   POSTULATE. 

ited  tlie  isles  spoken  of.  From  all  these 
facts  put  together  and  viewed  as  a  whole, 
our  reading  is,  that  the  flood  destroyed  the 
descendants  of  Adam  and  Eve,  except 
Noah  and  his  family.  For  reasons  only 
known  to  God,  they  were  split  up  into 
fragments,  and  sent  broadcast  over  the 
earth  ;  He  having  provided  them  with  lan- 
guages that  made  such  an  act  practicable 
in  their  division  among  the  nations. 


THE  STUPENDOUS  EREOK. 

Whatever  construction  has  been  placed 
by  Jew  or  Gentile  upon  tlie  Genesis  re- 
sj)ecting  tlie  creation  of  mankind,  wliether 
it  be  of  tlie  unity  of  tlie  race,  or  a  diversity 
of  origin,  it  has  no  force  to  dispel  or  correct 
the  great  error  that  has  crept  into  our  King 
James  translation  on  this  subject.  These 
views  may  have  had  much  to  do  with  its 
origin,  and  very  much  to  do  with  the  main- 
tenance of  it  to  support  these  views.  But 
an  error  is  an  error,  wherever  it  occm's ;  and 
is  great,  just  in  projDortion  to  the  importance 
of  the  suljject  involved. 

No  one  word  in  the  EnMish  lano^uacre 
has  i^robably  ever  performed  so  signal  a 
purpose  for  good  or  foi*  evil,  as  the  appar- 
ently insignificant  word  So  has  done  in  our 
Bil}le,  to  eliminate  a  true  meaning  and  con- 


140  THE   STUPENDOUS   EREOE. 

trol  a  false  one.  N^or  will  it  be  denied  by 
any  one  that  it  is  the  very  antij)odes  in 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  Yay  (and), 
whose  place  it  has  usurped.  It  being  a 
usurper  and  a  stranger  to  the  pure  Word 
of  God,  we  shall  not  spare  him  if  we  can 
use  our  pen  to  demolish  him,  and  point  out 
his  false  position  in  the  record,  and  the  still 
falser  influence  he  has  swayed  over  Christian 
people  who,  like  myself,  have  read  through 
him,  believing  that  this  was  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God. 

The  machinery  of  the  Genesis  respecting 
the  earlier  mankind  in  the  Hebrev/  is  accu- 
rate and  without  fault ;  making  the  acts  of 
God  in  Nature  harmoniously  agree  with  the 
record.  In  this  respect  it  may  be  compared 
with  the  delicate  works  of  a  finely  con- 
structed watch  movement  in  entire  unison 
and  beautiful  motion,  from  the  mainspring 
to  the  balance-wheel,  which  has  marked  off 
the  entrances  and  exits  of  every  individual 


THE   STUPENDOUS    EEROR.  Ill 

man  and  woman,  from  tlie  day  of  creation 
to  tlie  present  moment.  An  unskilled  me- 
chanic has  carelessly  dropped  the  joebble 
So  into  these  delicate  works  in  the  record 
of  them,  breaking  the  mainspring,  smash- 
ing the  jDarts  generally,  and  arrested  the 
motion  of  this  accurately  moving  God-writ- 
ten machinery. 

Who  has  done  this  thing?  There  are 
but  two  sides  to  this  question — the  false 
and  the  true,  and  nothing  intermediate. 
Does  the  Genesis  i.  27  in  the  Hebrew  be- 
gin with  Vay  (and)  ?  Is  And  found  at  the 
beginning  of  this  verse  in  our  translation  ? 
No.  This  word  So  takes  its  place,  and 
proclaims  to  the  readers  of  the  BilDle,  "  I 
have  stricken  out  one  of  God's  principal 
acts  in  creation,  and  /  say  there  was  ])ut 
one  man  and  one  woman  made  on  that  day. 
I  have  taken  this  scej^tre  into  my  o^vn 
hand,  and  you  must  read  under  my  rule 
and  under  my  dictation.     I  am  the  alpha 


142  THE   STUPENDOUS    EEEOE. 

and  omega  of  my  construction,  and  no  one 
must  question  the  unity  of  the  race." 

Presumptuous  usurper,  the  armored  Go- 
liath, a  wolf  in  shee23's  clothing.  Your 
plausible  assumption  has  drawn  millions  of 
Christian  minds  to  your  support  and  de- 
fence. Your  sceptre  and  rule  have  bound 
them  like  slaves  to  your  standard ;  and  the 
eagerness  with  which  they  have  fought 
under  your  banner  but  proves  their  sin- 
cerity as  Christians  battling  for  the  sup- 
posed Word  of  God.  You  have  reigned 
king  over  that  portion  of  the  account  relat- 
ing to  the  creation  of  mankind.  You,  the 
smallest  of  words,  have  been  the  greatest 
usurper,  the  most  wanton  deceiver,  the 
most  powerful  as  well  as  the  worst  and 
most  supreme  of  all  the  kings  of  errors. 

HOW   HAS    THIS    HAPPENED? 

There  never  was  a  case  requiring  more 
of  Christian  leniency  and  forbearance  than 


THE   STCPEXDOUS    ERROR.  143 

the  one  under  consideration.  Some  will 
undoubtedly  attribute  tlie  errors  spoken  of 
to  an  intention  to  make  the  Scriptures  con- 
form to  a  theology.  This  is  a  short-sighted 
view  of  the  case,  for  no  man  would  risk 
before  the  world  his  reputation  in  this 
matter,  if  he  had  done  this  intentionally, 
and  no  one  will  make  such  a  charge,  know- 
ing what  it  means,  and  understanding  the 
imjDutation  which  it  contains.  Men  some- 
times, in  the  zenith  of  worldly  reputation 
on  certain  subjects,  are  frequently  very  far 
from  being  caj)able  of  undertakings  thrust 
upon  them. 

Nor  do  we  believe  that  any  particular 
man  or  combination  of  men,  Avho  have  un- 
dertaken the  translation  of  the  Scriptures 
from  original  tongues,  are  rej^rehensibly 
responsible  for  these  errors.  Far  l^ack  in 
the  ages  past,  some  individual,  or  indi- 
viduals, have  looked  over  the  original  in- 
spiration  and    read    it   or    translated    it, 


144  THE   STUPENDOUS    EEEOE. 

supposing  that  tliey  had  at  sight  compre- 
hended tlie  entire  scope  of  its  meaning. 
The  seed  of  error  was  in  all  probability 
planted  here,  and  as  sincere  men  are  more 
prone  to  copy  what  they  supjDose  to  be 
inspiration  than  confute  it,  the  first  error, 
which  cannot  be  traced,  has  grown  by  oft 
repetitions  and  teachings  into  established 
fact. 

This  lapse  of  time  has  been  covered  by 
no  less  than  thirty  thousand  versions  or 
readings  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  most 
natural  inquiry  is,  how  is  it  possible  that 
these  errors  have  escaped  the  observation 
of  such  a  long  line  of  learning  ?  The  man 
^vllo  could  answer  this  inquiry  would  be 
fully  competent  to  write  the  insj^ii'ation. 

The  answer  may  be  measurably  made  in 
this  wise :  If  the  present  Hebrew  be 
acknowledged  as  the  true  copy  of  the 
inspiration,  then  the  errors  j)ointed  out  are 
errors.     But  if  the  Hebrew  be  wrong,  then 


THE   STUPENDOUS    ERROR.  145 

tlie  translation  may  or  may  not  be  right. 
We  have  never  seen  any  attack  or  ques- 
tioning of  the  Hebrew  text  on  this  subject, 
and  hence  have  assumed  it  as  a  conceded 
truth.  We  have  spoken  of  the  translators 
of  the  King  James  Bible,  and  it  might 
be  assumed  that  we  regarded  them  as  re- 
sponsible. To  a  certain  extent  they  are, 
but  their  instructions  were  to  follow 
mainty  the  Bishop's  Bible  then  in  use  (as 
will  be  seen  hereafter),  and  from  the  direc- 
tions given  and  the  shajDe  the  whole  trans- 
action took,  the  object  to  be  attained  was 
not  so  much  to  procure  a  correct  transla- 
tion from  the  original  tongues  from  the 
foundation,  as  to  appease  public  clamor 
against  the  discovered  errors  of  the  Bishop's 
Bible. 

The  early  idea  inculcated  that  Adam  and 
Eve  were  the  first  and  only  human  beings 
made,  was  a  natural  result  from  the  Gen- 
esis   beino;     the     commencement     of-    the 


146  THE   STUPENDOUS    EREOE. 

Mstoiy -of  the  Hebrews,  and  tlie  Old  Testa- 
ment almost  exclusively  treats  of  tliem. 
This  idea,  having  been  assumed  without 
critical  care,  gradually  became  stereotyped 
upon  the  minds  of  Biblical  scholars,  and 
assumed  by  them  as  much  a  Scriptural 
fact  as  though  it  had  been  stated  in  terms. 
Hence,  all  translators  and  Biblical  students 
became  in  a  measure  incapacitated  to  ex- 
amine normally  the  Hebrew  record  on  this 
subject,  and  therefore  we  say  that  no 
reprehensible  responsibility  should  rest 
upon  any  of  them  for  these  errors. 


ELIMINATIONS     AND     SUBSTITU- 
TIONS. 

We  give  below  the  eliminations  from  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  substitutions  in  English 
in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  of  all 
names  and  terms  essential  to  a  correct  un- 
derstanding of  the  introduction  of  mankind 
in  the  creation,  and  also  as  a:ffecting  Ada^i 
placed  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  continued 
till  after  the  flood.  It  must  not  be  as- 
sumed by  the  reader  that  the  whole  of 
the  King  James  translation  of  the  Bible 
abounds  in  like  eliminations  and  substitu- 
tions; for,  on  the  contrary,  as  far  as  we 
know — not  having  examined  other  j)or- 
tions  critically — we  hope  the  meanings  are 
substantially  retained.  This  subject  seems 
to  have  been  misappi'ehended,  or  at  least 
has  been  mistransciibed  from  the  Hebrew. 


148       ELIMIIS-ATIONS   AND 

SUBSTITUTIONS. 

! 

Hebrew  terms  eliminated. 

Substitutions. 

Gen. 

i.  26. 

Adam 

Man. 

Gen. 

i.  27. 

Ha- A  dam. 

Man. 

Gen. 

i.  27. 

Yay  (And). 

So. 

Gen. 

ii.    5. 

Adam 

Man. 

Gen. 

ii.    7. 

Ha- Adam  . 

Man. 

Gen. 

ii.    7. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Man. 

Gen. 

ii.    8. 

Ha- Adam  . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

ii.  15. 

Ha-Adam  . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

ii.  16. 

Ha-Adam  . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

ii.  18. 

Ha-Adam  . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

ii.  19. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

ii.  19. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

ii.  20. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

:                 Gen. 

ii.  21. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

•                 Gen. 

ii.  22. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Man. 

Gen. 

ii.  22. 

Ha-Adam . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

ii.  23. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

ii.  25. 

Ha-Adam.  . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

iii.    8. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

iii.    9. 

Ha-Adam . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

iii.  12. 

Ha-Adam  . 

The  man. 

Gen. 

iii.  20. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

iii.  22. 

Ha-Adam  . 

The  man. 

i                  Gen. 

iii.  24. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Tlie  man. 

Gen. 

iv.    1. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Adam. 

Gen. 

V.     1. 

Adam 

Man. 

Gen. 

vi.    1. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Men. 

Gen. 

vi.    2. 

Ha-Adam  . 

Men. 

ELIMINATIONS    AND    SUBSllTUTIONS.       140 

Hebrew  terms  eliminated.  Substitutions. 

Geu.  vi.    3.  Adam Man. 

Gen.  vi.    4.  Ila-Adam Men. 

Gen.  vi.    5.  iHa-Adam Man. 

Gen.  vi.    6.  Ha-Adam Man. 

Gen.  vi.    7.  Ha-Adam Man. 

Gen.  vi.    7.  Adam Man. 

Gen.  vii.  21.  lla-Adam Man. 

Gen.  vii.  23.  Adam Man. 

Gen.  viii.  21.  Ha-Adam Man's. 

Gen.  viii.  21.  Ha-Adam Man's. 

Gen.  ix.    5.  Ha-Adam Man. 

Gen.  ix.    5.  Ha-Adam Man. 

Gen.  ix.    6.  Ha-Adam Man's. 

Gen.  ix.    6.  Adam Man. 

Gen.  ix.    6.  Ha-Adam Man. 

Gen.  xi.    5.  Ha-Adam Men. 

Where  Adam  occurs  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  it  refers  to  the  individual  Ha-Adam, 
except  in  Gen.  i.  26  and  Gen.  v.  2,  where 
it  means  by  special  definition,  as  we  have 
shown  before,  male  an,d  female  man.  Ha- 
Adam  in  the  above  is  apparently  some- 
times used  to  denote  the  generations  of 
Adam  and  Eve. 


CONCLUSION  AND  VERIFICATION. 

Ojn"  a  subject  so  important  as  the  one 
under  discussion,  and  tlie  variety  of  opin- 
ion entertained  about  it,  it  would  be  pre- 
sumptuous to  assume  that  individual  effort 
at  elucidation  might  produce  much  more 
than  a  ripple  upon  the  vast  ocean  of  idea 
that  has  been  expended  upon  it.  Ex- 
panded as  this  ocean  is,  and  deep  as  has 
been  and  are  its  currents,  it  would  seem  of 
the  gravest  importance  that  some  chart 
should  be  settled  upon  by  the  Christian 
world  to  aid  the  confused  believer  in  its 
navigation.  There  are  millions  floating 
along  in  these  currents,  each  supported  in 
his  belief,  because  others  believe  as  he 
does,  who  never-  turned  a  thought  towards 
the  source  of  that  belief,  or  ever  took  the 
trouble     to     investigate     its     foundation. 


CONCLUSIOlSr   AND   VERIFICATION.        151 

Education  to  an  idea,  and  a  pantomime 
repetition  of  it,  is  the  extent  of  their 
knowledge,  and  they  rest  content,  believing 
they  are  brilliantly  educated  in  the  stupen- 
dous conceptions,  designs,  and  laws  of  the 
living  God,  by  such  tangent  touchings  to 
the  word. 

You  may  exhume  from  the  bowels  of 
Biblical  truth  the  most  brilliant  diamond, 
and  ask  them  to  examine  it,  and  if  it 
shadows  against  their  j)reconceived  opin- 
ions, they  will  glance  at  it,  and  exclaim, 
"  Deception  !  "  The  more  ignorant  they 
are,  the  quicker  will  be  their  conclusions, 
and  the  more  determined  their  opposition. 
There  are  others  who  will  listen,  but  with 
a  strong  determination  not  to  accept  any- 
thing but  such  as  they  believe.  These  will 
say,  "Well,  suppose  the  construction  of 
the  Genesis  has  been  ^vi'ong  or  not  clearly 
made  out,  why  disturb  it  ?  I  find  enough 
in  the  Bible  to  satisfy  me,  and  many  have 


152"       COIS'CLUSIOIN'   AND   VEEIFICATION". 

lived  and  died  in  this  belief."  Rusty, 
sluggish,  and  indolent  Cliristians !  For 
what  end  has  the  Bible  been  given  to 
man  ?  To  teach  error,  or  to  teach  truth ;  to 
believe  as  error,  or  to  believe  as  truth? 
From  neither  of  these  two  classes  of  believ- 
ers, either  as  believers  or  as  Biblical  schol- 
ars, will  these  pages  be  of  any  service,  even 
though  they  were  clothed  all  over  with  the 
pure  word  of  God. 

There  is,  however,  a  very  large  class  of 
intellectual  and  intelligent  Christians  who 
read  the  word,  not  in  pantomime,  but  with 
the  power  of  intellect  which  God  has  be- 
stowed upon  them.  They  investigate,  they 
probe,  not  being  satisfied  with  the  dead- 
lock of  the  acts  of  God  recorded  in  a  lan- 
guage in  which  inspiration  did  not  write 
with  His  acts  in  Nature.  They  delve  still 
deeper,  and  see  if  these  acts  have  been 
rightly  transcribed  into  the  new  language. 
They  balance  and  compare,  they  seek  for 


CONCLUSION   AND    VEKU^ICATION.        153 

definitions  of  terms,  and  keep  on  delving, 
working,  and  unfokling,  believing  always 
that  the  All-mse  God  would  never  give  to 
man  a  work  for  kis  study  that  he  could 
not  comprehend  the  statements  which  are 
given  therein  for  his  comprehension. 

If  this  work  should  then  develop  one 
grain  of  truth,  it  would  ensure  a  candid 
reading  and  ready  reception  by  this  class 
of  inquiring  Christians.  They  have  been 
ever  vigilant  to  grasp  whatever  is  truth, 
and  endeavor  to  conciliate  apparent  con- 
tradictions. Their  aim  always  being  to 
prove  God's  word  to  be  in  accordance  with, 
and  a  parallelism  to,  His  acts.  That  ^vhile 
all  acknowledsre  those  acts  to  have  been 
unchan2:iuo:  for  all  time  constitutinsr  His 
laws,  these  laws  in  Nature  are  as  binding 
as  the  written  laws  in  His  word.  He  then 
will  find  the  jewel  of  great  price,  who  will 
discover  the  harmony  betw^een  His  acts  in 
Natui'e,    and    the    Divine    written    word. 


154       COl^^CLUSIOlS-   AND   VEEinCATIO]^. 

He  will  uneartli  a  great  Biblical  truth  wlio 
will  show  Divine  authority  written  in  the 
Bible,  that  two  steps  in  a  line  of  reproduc- 
tion are  two  jDoints  in  an  unvarying  line 
backward  to  the  day  of  creation. 

The  first  and  greatest  difficulty  to  the 
general  reader  in  the  endeavor  to  compre- 
hend the  statements  herein  contained,  to 
show  this  and  other  points  upon  which  it 
dej)ends,  is  a  want  of  knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew.  Some  may  possess  this  knowl- 
edge, while  a  vast  majority  have  no  con- 
ception of  it,  and  possibly  some  may  not 
even  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  original 
inspiration  of  the  Genesis  was  written  first 
in  that  language.  They  may  say,  and  with 
great  force,  "  How  do  I  know  that  the  state- 
ments of  this  man  are  true,  when  the  Bible 
has  been  translated  by  eminent  Hebrew 
scholars,  and  that  translation  has  received 
the  silent  acquiescence  of  so  many  able 
divines  and  men  skilled  in  that  lano-ua^re 


CONCLUSION   AND    VERIFICATION.        155 

for  siicli  a  lenorth  of  time  ?  The  wei^flit  of 
evidence  is  against  him,  and  lie  does  not 
present  a  single  certification  that  his  state- 
ments are  true  or  his  translations  are  cor- 
rect." 

True :  nor  does  he  intend  to  do  so,  and 
the  reason  will  be  readily  understood.  For, 
instead  of  endeavorino^  to  make  others  think 
as  he  does,  or  read  as  he  does,  he  is  giving 
to  those  who  are  willins:  to  look  at  what  he 
has  found  in  the  Genesis,  after  more  years 
of  investigation  than  any  one  man  probably 
has  spent  upon  it,  that  they  may  be  able 
to  concentrate  their  labors  upon  the  vital 
points  necessary  to  a  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem so  long  acknowledged  as  unsolved. 
The  reader,  however,  is  referred  to  page  30 
of  Introduction. 

Nor  does  the  verification  extend  to  the 
general  translation.  We  assume  all  that  as 
correct,  leaving  it  to  others  to  show  wherein 
it  is  wrong  if  it  be  so.     The  whole  matter 


156        COIS-CLTJSTON   AND   VERIFICATION-. 

we  have  to  do  with  is  contained  in  the  mis- 
use in  the  translation  of  ttvo  names  and 
one  loord.  The  substitution  of  other  words 
for  them  and  their  eliminations  have  caused 
the  whole  difficulty. 

We  can  show  to  the  reader  who  never 
saw  the  Hebrew  how  he  can  verify  the  two 
names  we  speak  of  within  the  English 
Bible,  and  he  will  only  be  left  to  find  out 
whether  this  one  other  word  is  rightly 
transposed  from  the  Hebrew ;  and  we  think 
we  can  almost  conclusively  show  that  it  is 
not,  from  the  translation.  The  two  names 
are  Adam  male  and  female  m.an^  and  Ha- 
Adam  or  The  Adam,  the  individual  placed 
in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  the  one  Hebrew 
word  meaning  And,  stricken  out  at  the 
beginning  of  Genesis  i.  27,  and  the  substi- 
tution of  the  word  So  in  its  stead. 

The  reader  will  naturally  exclaim,  ''  Is 
this  all,  and  is  it  possible  that  so  insignifi- 
cant a   mistranscribing  should   make   any 


CONCLUSIOIS-    AND    VERIFICATION.        157 

essential  difference  in  meaning  ? "  We 
answer,  Yes,  this  is  all.  For  by  the  leaving 
out  the  name  Adam  male  and  female  man, 
in  the  day  of  creation,  and  the  name  Ha- 
Adam  in  various  places  in  the  Genesis,  and 
the  substitution  of  So  for  And,  the  follow- 
ing results  must  necessarily  be  the  con- 
struction placed  u]3on  the  translation  : 

If'irst.  That  a  principal  act  of  God  in 
creation,  that  of  making  Ada3I  male  and 
female  man^  is  eliminated  and  stricken  out. 

Second.  The  creative  name  of  The  Ada:m 
the  individual  is  in  like  manner  eliminated. 

Third.  By  the  use  of  the  word  So  for 
And,  the  making  of  the  class  Adam  in 
Genesis  i.  26  is  declared  to  l)e  the  same  act 
of  God  as  the  creatino;  of  Ha-Ada3I  the  in- 
dividual  in  Genesis  i.  27. 

Foiirtli.  By  eliminating  the  name  Ha- 
Adam  in  other  portions  of  the  Genesis,  and 
substituting  men  and  Tuan^  the  flood  is  made 
universal ;  that  is,  made  to  destroy  all  men^ 


158        COTTCLUSION   AND    VEEIFICATIOJS-. 

instead  of  destroying  the  generations  of  Ha- 
Adam  or  The  Adam. 

The  natural  inquiry  of  any  ordinary 
reader  of  history,  either  sacred  or  profane, 
should  and  would  be,  if  the  idea  occurred  to 
him,  "  Why  have  the  translators  translated 
a  proper  name  at  all,  and  as  they  have 
done  so;  sometimes  rendering  Ha- Ad  am, 
Adam,  sometimes  "tnan^  sometimes  the  man^ 
and  sometimes  men?  If  the  original 
Hebrew  name  was  to  be  abandoned  in  the 
English,  why  not  have  used  the  same  term 
for  the  same  name  where  it  occurred  "i  " 
If  the  reader  asks  the  question,  he  must 
satisfy  himself  with  an  answer;  we  only 
state  the  facts  of  the  case. 

VERinCATIOI^    FROM     THE   E^-aLISH   TRAI^SLA- 
TIOIT. 

This  verification  is  important  to  the 
reader,  who  has  no  means  of  judging  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  translation  from  the  Hebrew 


CONCLUSIO:^   A]SrD    VERIFICATION.        150 

to  the  English.  We  think  we  can  prove 
what  the  Hebrew  should  be  in  the  instances 
under  consideration,  from  so  much  of  the 
Genesis  as  has  been  transcribed  correctly. 
Then  as  to  the  name  Adam  male  and  female 
man. 

Gen.  .V.  2.  Male  and  female  created  He  them ;  and 
blessed  them,  and  called  their  name  AD^\3r,  in  the 
day  when  they  were  created. 

This  is  the  translation,  and,  so  far  as  we 
can  see,  it  is  a  correct  transcription  from 
the  Hebrew;  the  name  Adam  occurring 
there  as  it  does  here.  The  only  part  of 
Gen.  i.  relating  to  the  making  and  creating 
of  mankind,  is  the  following  in  the  trans- 
lation : 

Gen.  i.  26.  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness:  and  let  them  have  do- 
minion over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the 
earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth. 

Gen.  i.  27.  Sn  God  created  man  in  His  own  image,  in 
the  image  of  God  created  He  him  ;  male  and  female 
created  He  them. 


160       COI^CLUSIOJS'   AND   YEEIFIOATIOlSr. 

We  then  see  that  Adam,  being  a  name  as 
stated  in  Gen.  v.  2,  and  that  its  definition 
is  male  and  female  man,  has  no  place  in 
either  of  these  two  verses,  being  the  day 
when  they  were  created.  Then,  knowing 
the  fact  by  Divine  authority  that  it  should 
be  there,  where  will  you  place  it  without 
reference  to  the  Hebrew  ?  You  could  not 
place  it  in  the  Genesis  i.  27,  where  rnmi 
occurs,  because  that  is  a  single  man,  as  the 
translation  asserts.  "  So  God  created  man 
in  His  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
created  He  him :  "  Adam  being  defined  as 
male  and  female,  and  this  term  7na7i  is  a 
single  male  governed  by  hi7n.  Nor  can  it 
be  taken  as  the  male  and  female  in  the 
same  verse,  because  they  stand  for  persons 
not  named.  But  suppose  we  do  assume 
that  this  male  and  female  represent  Adam, 
how  are  we  to  account  still  for  this  name 
in  the  day  of  creation,  and  what  signifi- 
cance are  we  to  give  to  man  in  the  Genesis 


COITCLUSION   AND    VERIFICATIOI^.        iGl 

i.  26  ?  Man  there  means  a  class,  for  tliey 
were  to  liave  clominioa,  etc.  "  And  let 
them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the 
sea,"  etc. 

Then,  if  man  in  Gen.  i.  27  was  the  same 
as  man  in  Gen.  i.  26,  then  Tie  was  to  have 
dominion,  etc.,  and  the  true  statement, 
"And  let  tlietn  have  dominion,"  etc.,  is  a 
plain  contradiction.  The  reader  can  see, 
then,  that  he  cannot  j)lace  the  name  Ada^i, 
male  and  female,  for  man,  in  the  Genesis  i. 
27,  nor  for  male  and  female  in  the  same 
verse,  because  these  are  placed  there  with- 
out names.  The  only  place  left  is  man  in 
Gen.  i.  26,  and  there  is  just  where  Adam 
occurs  in  the  original  Hebrew  text.  Our 
assertion  of  the  fact  is  therefore  corrobo- 
lated  without  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew^ 
and  any  one  possessing  that  knowledge 
can  easily  deny  our  statement  if  it  is  not 
so. 

ISTow,  in  respect  to  the  individual  created 


1G2        CONCLUSIOIf   AND    VEEiriCATIOTT, 

as  7nan  in  Gen.  i.  27.  Tlie  question  witli 
tlie  reader  is,  to  inquire  whetlier  one  man 
was  created  by  this  account,  and  if  so,  had 
lie  a  name  or  designation  in  the  Hebrew. 
It  is  correctly  stated  in  many  places  in  the 
Genesis,  that  it  was  an  individual,  and  that 
his  name  was  The  Adam.  Then,  the 
reader  might  ask,  why  was  not  that  name 
used  in  the  translation  as  well  as  in  the 
Hebrew,  to  denote  the  fact?  We  say  it 
was  so  used  in  the  Hebrew,  and  is  there 
put  down  as  Ha- Adam — Ha  being  the  in 
the  English  language — so  that  Ha- Adam 
was  the  Hebrew  name  which  in  English  is 
The  Adam.  The  necessity  of  the  insertion 
of  the  Hebrew  term,  when  it  occurs  in  the 
Hebrew,  to  denote  this  individual,  must  be 
done  and  repeated  in  the  translation  to 
give  an  accurate  conception  of  the  subject. 
The  reader  will  see,  without  references  l^y 
us  or  quotations,  that  where  his  individual- 
ity occurs  in  the    translation,   he  is  more 


CONCLUSION    AND    VERIFICATIOX.        IG^ 

frequently  called  the  mem,  mem,  and  m<?;^, 
than  Adam,  and  7iever  once  in  the  trans- 
lated Genesis,  The  Adam. 

A  normal  reader  would  therefore  con- 
clude that  there  was  something  very  singu- 
lar in  the  fact  that  this  name  Adam,  or  The 
Ada3I,  was  not  persistently  used  to  desig- 
nate the  individual,  and  he  would  undoubt- 
edly claim  the  right  to  insert  in  his  own 
reading  of  Genesis,  either  of  these  names, 
uniformly,  for  the  purpose  of  understand- 
ing it,  without  any  reference  to  Hebre^v 
names  left  out  in  the  translation,  and  other 
terms  substituted.  For  these  reasons,  the 
conclusion  is  inevitable  that  some  uniform 
term  or  name  should  be  used  for  the  indi- 
vidual placed  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and 
that  name  should  be  The  Adam,  or  Adam. 
The  elimination  of  these  Hebrew  terms, 
and  the  substitution  of  others,  will  be 
clearly  set  forth  in  the  eleven  chapters  of 
Genesis  in  the  back  of  this  work,  and  if 


164       CONCLUSION   AND    VEEIFICATION. 

tliey  are   not   correct,  any   errors   can   be 
easily  pointed  out. 

The  striking  out  of  And^  and  substituting 
So^  cannot  be  made  as  clear  to  tlie  reader 
as  we  would  wisli,  without  a  reference  to 
the  Hebrew.  Still,  we  think,  as  applied  to 
the  translation,  after  the  name  Adam  shall 
be  placed  where  Grod  j^nt  it,  and  Ha- Adam, 
or  The  Ada]m,  not  denied  its  place,  the  two 
verses  would  assuuie  such  a  form  that  the 
word  So  would  be  inapjDlicable,  and  give 
no  sense  as  an  English  word.  We  quote 
them  with  the  names  restored,  retaining  the 
word  So, 

Gen.  i.  26.  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  Adam  male  and 
female  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness :  and 
let  tliem  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and 
over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and 
over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing 
that  creepeth  upon  the  earth. 

Gen.  i.  27.  So  God  created  Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adam,  in 
His  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He 
him ;  male  and  female  created  He  them. 

As  a  rhetorical  question,  any  one  can  de- 


CON^CLUSlUN    AND    VEEIFICATIOIS^.        1G5 

cide  it  as  well  as,  and  probably  better  than, 
the  author.  But  as  a  Biblical  question,  ifc 
is  easily  decided.  By  the  elimination  of  the 
word  AND  and  the  substitution  of  the  ^vord 
so,  in  Genesis  i.  27,  whoever  has  done  it  sub- 
stantially has  said  to  Moses,  "  You  did  not 
know  Avhat  you  were  writing  about,  and  did 
not  understand  your  subject.  You  should 
not  have  used  the  word  and  in  that  place, 
but  should  have  used  the  word  so,  because 
we  know  God  did  not  mean  anything  by 
the  Genesis  i.  26,  except  as  a  declaration  of 
intention  of  what  He  did  do  in  Genesis  i. 
27.  AVe  sliall  therefore  take  out  yoar 
word  AND  and  put  in  our  word  so." 

And  so,  too,  the  constructionists  of  the 
unity  of  the  race  say  of  Moses  substan- 
tially the  same  thing,  when  they  read 
God's  law  of  reproduction — "  Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  Ms 
hindr  ^'  Now,  Moses  wrote  this,  of  course, 
but  he  did  not  mean  what  he  says,  because 


lG(j      •CONCLUSIO:^"   Am>   VEEIFICATION. 

we  have  always  considered  the  living 
creature  as  appl}nng  to  the  brute  creation, 
the  fishes,  the  fowls,  and  the  creeping 
things.  Those  we  see  and  know  are  repro- 
duced in  kind  as  he  says,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law.  But  we  have  always 
read,  and  so  believe,  that  Adam  and  Eve 
were  the  only  man  and  woman  made  on 
the  day  of  creation,  and  if  this  law  of 
reproduction  be  made  aj)plicable  to  the 
human  race,  then  all  men  and  women  now 
on  the  earth  would  be  of  one  kind.  No, 
Moses  never  meant  that  law  should  apply 
to  the  human  race." 

So  we  might  expect,  from  what  we  have 
seen,  that  the  translators  would  have  put 
in  the  following,  if  they  had  not  finished 
the  subject  by  what  they  have  done:  '^Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature, 
except  man^  after  his  kind ;  "  for  no  one 
would  probably  go  so  far  as  to  declare, 
except  he  be  an  enthusiast,  that  man  is  not 


■  CONCLUSION    AND    VERIFICATION.        1G7 

a  livino;  creature  of  God.  These  illustra- 
tions  show  the  necessity  of  setting  aside 
individual  opinions  upon  the  reading  and 
construction  of  plain  passages  of  Scripture. 
AYhen  ^^e  find  a  positive  statement,  like 
the  law  of  reproduction,  give  it  full  force, 
without  it  is  positively  confined  within 
limits  by  another  statement. 

.  The  reader  can  easily  verify  the  law  of 
marriao:e  of  near  akin  laid  down  in 
Leviticus  xviii.,  and  can  decide  for  himself 
whether  the  statutes  and  judgments  of  God 
were  from  the  beginning,  or  whether  they 
have  been  made  to  fit  cases  as  they  occur. 
'With  these  explanations  he  will  be  enabled 
to  gain  a  reasonably  clear  concej)tion  of 
the  subject.  But  if  he  should  fail  still  in 
his  confidence  in  the  Hebrew  eliminations 
and  English  substitutions,  and  take  suffi- 
cient interest  in  the  subject,  he  can  apply 
to  any  Hebrew  scholar  to  verify  the  state- 
mcDts  herein  contained. 


168       CONCLUSION  AND   VEKDICATION. 


SUMMAEY. 


Having  gone  through  witli  this  subject, 
and  handled  it  in  such  a  way,  we  hope,  as 
to  place  men  on  their  guard  not  to  inter- 
polate, not  to  eliminate,  not  to  substitute, 
and  not  to  place  their  individual  opinions 
against  the  recorded  word  of  God,  we  are 
now  prej)ared  to  sum  up  the  evidences 
which  we  have  gleaned  from  the  record. 
And  we  are  willing  to  acknowledge,  being 
so  fearful  of  individual  bias  and  the  opera- 
tion of  individual  opinion  where  the  word 
of  God  is  concerned,  that  we  almost  shrink 
from  the  responsibility.  But  truth  is 
potent.  And  if  the  things  stated  here  be 
the  truth,  our  responsibility  will  end  with 
the  declaration  of  it,  while  that  of  others 
will  begin,  who  have  held  the  contrary, 
and  see  these  facts.  We  then  determine 
the  following  as  we  read  the  record  : 

^i?'st.  That  there  was  a  creation  by  the 


CONCLUSION    AND    VEKIFICATION.        IGO 

fiat  of  God  in  six  grand  divisions.  Each 
division  was  made  or  created  in  time 
called  days,  and  tliese  days  were  sub- 
divided into  periods  called  light,  darkness, 
evening,  and  morning. 

Second.  That  these  creations  were  to 
accomplish  certain  great  and  glorious  ends. 
Parts  were  to  remain  as  created  or  made, 
and  other  portions  were  to  continue  by 
changes. 

Third.  Mankind  were  made  or  created 
to  continue  by  changes. 

Fourth.  Continuance  by  changes  in  the 
human  species,  requii-ed  and  received  a  law 
regulating  these  changes  from  step  to  step. 
This  is  the  law  of  reproduction  after  his 
hind. 

Fifth.  The  operation  of  these  laws  must 
be  judged  and  determined  by  observation, 
in  like  manner  with  all  other  natural 
laws. 

Sixth.  That  observation  shows  that  dif- 


170       COIN-CLUSIOIS"   AND    VERIFICATION. 

ferent  kinds  of  men  and  women  are  pro- 
duced on  tlie  earth.  We  must  assume, 
even  without  revelation,  that  this  is  a 
Divine  law,  and  it  must  not  be  claimed  as 
having  changed,  unless  we  have  positive 
proof.  It  becomes  a  still  more  binding 
law  when  we  find  it  laid  down  in  the  in- 
spired record. 

SeventJi.  We  have  shown  two  classes  of 
male  and  female  as  created  or  made  in  the 
day  of  creation :  Adam  male  and  female, 
and  The  Adam,  and. also  male  and  female. 

Eiglitli.  The  former  class  has  been  ig- 
nored .and  eliminated  from  our  Bible, 
which  shows  but  one  act  of  God  in  the 
creation  of  mankind,  when  it  should  record 
two. 

Ninth.  We  have  not  yet  received  in 
our  English  Bible  the  pure  word  of  God 
on  this  subject,  as  found  in  the  Hebrew, 
from  these  and  other  causes  of  elimination 
to  which  we  have  referred. 


GOXCLUSION   AND    VERIFICATION.       171 

Tenth.  These  continued  errors  have 
bound  our  Bible  to  tbe  declaration  of  the 
unity  of  tlie  race  in  Ada:\i  and  Eve. 

.Eleventh.  The  flood  only  destroyed  their 
descendants,  and  did  not  destroy  all  flesh 
or  evei^y  man^  from  the  normal  reading  of 
the  account. 

Twelfth.  That  the  Bible  nowhere  states 
in  terms  that  the  human  family  have  de- 
scended from  one  man,  or  one  pair,  or  from 
a  common  parent.  Hence,  it  is  not  Biblical 
that  we  have  all  descended  from  Adam 
and  Eve,  except  through  the  eliminations 
and  substitutions  spoken  of. 

Thirteenth.  By  these  eliminations  and 
substitutions,  the  Bible  has  been  warped 
out  of  its  true  meaning,  and  Christians 
have  been  reading  these  manisms,  instead 
of  the  pure  word  of  God. 

Fourteenth.  We  claim  as  a  finality,  that 
the  Hebrew  names  and  terms  should  be 
restored,    and   these  manisms   rooted   out. 


172  CONCLUSION   AND   YEEIFICATION 

That  every  term  anS  name  found  in  the 
original  record  should  be  cherished  and 
retained  in  its  place,  as  a  jewel  of  priceless 
value.  When  this  is  done,  theologies  and 
constructions  will  take  care  of  themselves  ; 
but  no  theology  or  construction  should  de- 
prive the  Christian,  or  any  other  man,  of 
the  pure  and  unadulterated  word  of  God. 


RESULT. 

AD^trrrrN-a  that  the  Christian  world  is 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  main  pos- 
tulates, which  we  think  have  been  j)i'oven, 
and  that  they  find  the  eliminations  of 
Adam  the  class,  and  The  Ada3I  the  indi- 
vidual, and  of  the  single  word  And  (which 
after  all  governs  the  whole  case),  and  that 
for  these  terms  in  the  original  Hebrew 
other  terms  have  been  substituted,  which 
have  chano-ed  the  whole  meaninc^  of  the 
Genesis,  as  regards  the  introduction  of 
mankind  into  the  creation.  What  is  the 
result  ? 

On  the  one  hand  are  the  various  sectari- 
an denominations,  with  the  learned  Divines 
almost  to  a  unit  reading  the  King  James 
translation  of  the  Bible,  and  grounding 
their  belief  upon  these  substitutions.  On 
the  other  hand  is  an  equally  large  num1)er 


174  EESULT. 

who,  thougli  they  believe  in  the  Bible  gen- 
erally, and  are  well  grounded  in  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  do  not  believe  the  construction 
placed  upon  it,  that  all  kinds  of  men  and 
women  have  descended  from  Adam  and 
Eve,  this  not  being  one  of  the  fundamental 
articles  of  the  Christian  faith. 

So  intimately  is  this  construction  con- 
nected with  the  Bible,  and  so  bold  and 
pointed  are  the  declarations  of  its  advo- 
cates that  this  is  what  the  Bible  calls  for, 
that  a  charo-e  of  disbelief  in  this  construe- 
tion  is  received  as  a  charge  of  disbelief  in 
the  Bible.  This  leads  to  acrimonious  feel- 
ing, and  acts  incidentally  and  strongly  on 
a  belief  in  the  Bible  truths  in  other  re- 
spects, and  is  a  serious  impediment  to  the 
universal  reception  of  the  Christian  faith. 
This  has  been  progressing  for  years,  till 
the  Genesis  has  become  a  gladiators'  ring, 
and  the  whole  world  is  looking  on  to  see 
the   result.     Meantime,  others,    seeing  the 


RESULT.  175 

extent  of  tliis  contest,  and  the  persistency 
with  which  each  party  holds  to  its  belief, 
are  entering  to  dispute  other  portions  of 
the  sacred  word. 

All  this  has  a  pernicious  and  serious  ef- 
fect upon  Christianity  itself.  Time  and 
effort  which  should  be  devoted  to  the  ex- 
tension of  the  Christian  faith,  are  lost  in  the 
vain  effort  to  extinguish  opposition  to  this 
construction.  The  opponents  are  backed 
by  the  acts  of  God  in  Nature,  and  by  an 
admitted  principle  that  He  is  unchanging 
in  these  acts,  and  their  experience  confirms 
them  in  that  position.  They  see  various 
kinds  of  men  and  women  differing  in  physi- 
cal organization,  produced  and  reproduced, 
the  one  never  producing  the  other,  and  no 
history,  sacred  or  profane,  recording  the 
adverse.  They  say  that  the  construction- 
given  to  Scripture,  where  nothing  to  the 
contrary  is  stated,  should  be  in  exact  ac- 
cordance and  in  parallelisms  with  the  re- 


176  EESULT. 

vealed    word    and    the    act&    of    God    in 
Nature. 

The  advocates  of  the  unity  of  the  race, 
on  the  other  hand,  admit  the  production 
and  reproduction  of  the  various  kinds  of 
men  and  women  as  now  found  upon  the 
earth — admit  this  through  all  history,  but 
claim  that  the  change  took  place  in  the 
hiatus  from  the  creation  to  where  history 
became  reliable.  Reading  the  Scripture 
upon  the  substitutions  we  have  spoken  of, 
this  becomes  a  necessity  to  protect  and 
make  good  this  supposition.  They  assert 
that  God  changed  His  law  of  reproduction 
somewhere  in  the  generations  of  Noah,  but 
cannot  point  to  the  time  or  place  or  fact  of 
such  change.  This  position,  when  investi- 
gated, becomes  a  simple  assertion,  a  man- 
ism,  without  one  word  of  proof,  either 
sacred  or  profane,  to  sustain  it,  and  should 
have  no  weight  in  deciding  a  Biblical  fact, 


RESULT.  177 

nor  should  it  even  have  weight  towards 
founding  belief. 

The  subject,  then,  stripped  of  this  man- 
ism,  leaves  it  open  to  be  decided  upon  Bibli- 
cal ground,  and  upon  that  alone  should  it 
be  decided.  In  this  view  of  the  questi.  . 
they  may  well  ask  themselves,  why  have 
the  eliminations  referred  to  in  Genesis  been 
made,  and  why  was  it  necessary  to  elimin- 
ate at  all  ?  Why  not  have  placed  the  names 
of  the  two  Adams  in  the  English  where  they 
occurred  in  the  Hebrew  ?  Why  not  have 
retained  the  word  Ajs^d  instead  of  substitut- 
ing the  word  So.  The  most  important 
question,  however,  is.  Have  we  founded  our 
construction  upon  the  pure  word  of  God, 
or  upon  these  manisms  ? 

We  believe  that  no  one  will  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  this  construction  made  in  good 
faith  on  the  supposed  word  of  God,  for  we 
have   once  believed   in   that  construction. 

Such  belief  of  the  unity  of  the  race  on  this 
8* 


178  RESULT. 

ground  is  higMy  commendable.  The  re- 
sponsibility only  begins  wich  tlie  discovery 
of  the  error.  Let  iis  look  at  the  subject  in 
the  light  that  this  construction  has  been 
based  on  error,  and  that  the  Genesis,  and 
the  Bible  as  a  whole,  is  relieved  of  it  by  a 
return  to  the  eliminations  from  the  Hebrew 
record.  The  constructionists  of  the  unity 
yield  nothing,  for  they  have  persistently 
declared  that  the  Genesis  was  an  unex- 
plained portion  of  Scripture.  What  do  they 
gain  if  this  gives  a  consistent  reading  and 
a  clear  understanding  of  what  has  not  been 
understood?  They  gain  just  what  they 
have  wanted,  and  declared  they  wanted  in 
their  proclamation,  that  Genesis  was  unex- 
plained, and  the  honest  portion  of  the 
world  would  say  to  them,  "  You  have  done 
the  best  you  could  to  support  the  supposed 
word  of  God." 

What  would  their  opponents  gain  ?     Just 
nothing.     For  they  get  what  they  have  be- 


RESULT.  179 

lieved,  and  what  loy  tlieir  own  efforts  tliey 
have  endeavored  to  show,  but  which  they 
have  not  shown  to  conquer,  by  any  argu- 
ments or  proofs  which  they  have  educed. 
The  contest,  therefore,  over  the  unity  of 
the  race  must  be  regarded  as  an  undecided 
battle  between  the  contestants,  neither  side 
having  brought  forth  proofs  or  arguments 
that  vanquished  the  other.  Each  has  been 
contending,  as  we  believe,  with  false*  weap- 
ons, while  the  "smooth  stone  oat  of  the 
brook  "  has  remained  unnoticed,  unheeded, 
and  im tried.. 

If  this  readino;  and  construction  be  re- 
ceived  by  the  Christian  world,  we  may  well 
say  that  a  millennium  has  come.  The  eyes 
of  all  will  be  turned  to  the  Bible  as  a  book 
of  inspiration  agreeing  with  the  acts  of 
God  in  Nature,  and  by  agreement  in  this 
respect  reflect  favorably  upon  the  whole. 
Dissensions  will  cease,  sects  will  no  lono-er 
be  divided,  the  jDroblem  of  Genesis  will  be 


180  KESULT. 

declared  solved,  and  tlie  great  stumbling- 
block  to  belief  at  the  very  threshold  of 
creation  and  Divine  truth  be  removed. 

How,  then,  will  this  reading  be  received  ? 
Will  Christians  still  go  on  and  claim  the 
King  James  translation  infallible  ?  Will 
they  still  continue  to  read  and  teach  man- 
isms  instead  of  the  pure  word  of  God? 
Will  they  consent  to  the  eliminations  and 
substitutions  we  have  pointed  out  as  being 
the  photograph  of  Divine  inspiration  ? 
Will  the  combatants  ov^er  the  sacred 
word  be  willing  to  lay  off  their  armor,  and 
agree  upon  the  pure  word  of  God  from  the 
Hebrew  ?  God  only  knows,  and  time 
alone  can  reveal  the  result. 


ELIMINATIONS  EESTORED. 

As  we  have  said  before,  tlie  eliminations 
of  Hebrew  names  and  words  extend  only 
to  the  follomng,  which  is  as  far  as  our 
subject  goes  : 

Adam  male  and  female  man. 

Ha- Adam,  or  The  Adam,  the  individual. 

Vay,  meaning  Aisid. 

We  give  hereafter  the  first  two  and  also 
parts  of  the  remaining  eleven  chapters  of 
Genesis  wherein  these  names  and  this  word 
And  are  restored  to  their  places,  and  have 
taken  out  the  substitutions  which  have  been 
placed  there  in  their  stead.  We  shall  give 
at  the  same  time,  in  notes  to  each  verse, 
the  rendering  of  these  terms  by  the  trans- 
lators, so  that  the  reader  can  make  the 
ready  comparison  without  referring  to  the 
Bible.     Every   one   will    admit    that    the 


182  ELIM NATIONS    RESTOEED. 

name  of  an  individual  is  not  a  subject  of 
translation;  and  liere  was  one  of  the 
grounds  whicli  has  led  to  the  stupendous 
error. 

Adam,  male  and  female,  is  left  out  but 
once,  while  The  Adaih  has  never  been  al- 
lowed a  place  in  the  Bible  at  all,  although 
this  name  occurs  in  the  first  eleven  chapters 
no  less  than  thirty-six  times.  In  the 
face  of  this  fact,  our  Bible  has  been  pre- 
sented to  us  as  the  correct  transcription  of 
the  word  of  God.  The  name  Ha-Adam, 
translated  The  Adam,  by  which  he  was 
created,  has  been  denied  a  place  in  God's 
record  of  the  transaction,  or  even  in  the 
Bible  !  He  has  been  called  man,  the  man, 
men,  men's,  and  Adam,  but  never  once  The 
Adam.  To  say  the  least,  this  is  a  very, 
singular  circumstance.  Any  reader  would 
naturally  ask  why  this  was  done  ?  It  mat- 
ters not  .if  injustice  in  this  respect  has  been 
iuiiicted  upon  him,  it  is  not  too  late  now 


ELIMINATIONS    PwESTORED.  183 

to  make  amends.  We  shall  place  Lis  name 
as  The  xIdam  just  where  it  occurs  in  the 
HebrcvV,  but  we  shall  not  change  his  name 
when  it  also  occui^s  in  the  Hebrew  as  Adam. 


GENESIS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

1.  In  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth. 

2.  And  the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void  ; 
and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep. 
And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of 
the  waters. 

3.  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light :  and 
there  was  light. 

4.  And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good : 
and  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness. 

5.  And  God  called  the  light  Day,  and  the 
darkness  he  called  Night.  And  the  evening  and 
the  morning  were  the  first  day. 

6.  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament  in 
the  midst  of  the  waters,  and  let  it  divide  the 
waters  from  the  waters. 

7.  And  God  made  the  firmament,  and  divided 
the  waters  which  were  under  the  firmament  from 
the  waters  which  were  above  the  firmament :  and 
it  was  so. 

8.  And  God  called  the  firmament  Heaven. 


GENESIS.  155 

And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  sec- 
ond day. 

9.  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  under  the 
heaven  be  gathered  together  unto  one  place,  and 
let  the  dr}^  layid  appear :  and  it  was  so. 

10.  And  God  called  the  dry  land  Earth  ;  and 
the  gathering  together  of  the  waters  called  he 
Seas :  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

11.  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 
grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree 
yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in 
itself,  upon  the  earth  :  and  it  was  so. 

12.  And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  and 
herb  yielding  seed  after  his  kind,  and  the  tree 
yielding  fruit,  whose  seed  ivas  in  itself,  after 
his  kind  :  and  God  saw  that  it  teas  good. 

13.  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were 
the  third  day. 

14.  And  God  said.  Let  there  be  lights  in  the 
firmament  of  the  heaven  to  divide  the  day  from 
the  night ;  and  let  them  be  for  signs,  and  for  sea- 
sons, and  for  days,  and  years : 

15.  And  let  them  be  for  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment of  the  heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth : 
and  it  was  so. 

16.  And  God  made  two  great  lights;  the 
greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light 
to  rule  the  nio^ht :  he  made  the  stars  also. 


186  GENESIS. 

17.  And  God  set  tliem  in  tlie  firmament  of 
heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth. 

18.  And  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the 
night,  and  to  divide  the  light  from  the  darkness : 
and  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

19.  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were 
the  fourth  day. 

20.  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth 
abundantly  the  moving  creature  that  hath  life, 
and  fowl  that  may  fly  above  the  earth  in  the 
open  firmament  of  heaven. 

21.  And  God  created  great  whales,  and  every 
living  creature  that  moveth,  which  the  waters 
brought  forth  abundantly,  after  theie  kind,  and 
every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind  :  and  God  saw 
that  it  was  good. 

22.  And  God  blessed  them,  saying.  Be  fruitful, 
and  multiply,  and  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas,  and 
let  fowl  multiply  in  the  earth, 

23.  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the 
fifth  day. 

24.  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 
THE  living  creature  AFTER  HIS  KIND,  cattlc,  and 
creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his 
KIND :  and  it  was  so.  .   ' 

25.  And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  af- 
ter HIS  KIND,  and  cattle  after  their  kind,  and 


GENESIS.  187 

every  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  aftkp. 
HIS  KIND :  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

26.  And   God   said,  Let   us  make  ADAM  "'^ 

{Male  and  female,  man,  Gen.  v.  2),  in  our  image, 

after  our  likeness ;  and  let  them  have  dominion 

over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the 

air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  tlie  earth, 

and  over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon 

the  earth. 

*  By  translators,  man. 

27.  AxD*  God  created  The  Adam  f  in  his  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him  ; 
male  and  female  created  he  them. 

*  By  translators,  So.  f  By  translators,  man. 

28.  And  God  blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto 
them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the 
earth,  and  subdue  it :  and  have  dominion  over 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air, 
and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the 
earth. 

29.  And  God  said,  Behold,  I  have  given  you 
every  herb  bearing  seed,  which  is  upon  the  face 
of  all  the  earth,  and  every  tree,  in  the  which  is 
the  fruit  of  a  tree  yielding  seed ;  to  you  it  shall 
be  for  meat. 

30.  And  to  every  beast  of  the  earth,  and  to 
every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  every  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth,  wherein  there  is  life,  / 


188  GEl^ESIS. 

have  given  every  green  herb  for  meat ;  and  it 
was  so. 

31.  And  God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had 
made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good.  And  the 
evening  and  the  morning  were  the  sixth  day. 

CHAPTER   II. 

1.  Thus  the  heaven  *  and  the  earth  were  finish- 
ed, and  all  the  host  of  them. 

*  By  translators,  heaveiis. 

2.  And  on  the  seventh  day  God  ended  his 
work  which  he  had  made  ;  and  he  rested  on  the 
seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had 
made. 

3.  And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanc- 
tified it :  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all 
his  work  which  God  created  and  made. 

4.  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heaven  "^ 
and  of  the  earth  when  they  were  created,  in  the 
day  that  the  Lord  God  made. the  earth  and  the 
heaven.* 

*  By  translators,  heavens. 

5.  And  every  plant  of  the  field  before  it  was 
in  the  earth,  and  every  herb  of  the  field  before  it 
grew :  for  the  Lord  God  had  not  cansed  it  to 
rain  upon  .the  earth,  and  Adam"^  was  not,  to  till 
the  ground. 

*  By  translators,  there  was  not  a  man. 


GEKESIS.  189 

6.  But  there  went  np  a  mist  from  the  earth, 
and  watered  the  whole  face  of  the  ground. 

7.  And  the  Lord  God  formed  The  Adam  *  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nos- 
trils the  breath  of  life ;  and  The  Adam  *  became 

a  living  soul. 

*  By  translators,  man. 

8.  And  the  Lokd  God  planted  a  garden  east- 
ward in  Eden;  and  there  he  put  The  Adam"^ 
whom  he  had  formed. 

*  By  translators,  the  man. 

9.  And  out  of  the  ground  made  the  Lord  God 
to  grow  every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight, 
and  good  for  food ;  the  tree  of  life  also  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden,  and  the  tree  of  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil. 

10.  And  a  river  went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the 
garden ;  and  from  thence  it  was  parted,  and  be- 
came into  four  heads. 

11.  The  name  of  the  first  is  Pi  son  :  that  is  it 
which  compasseth  the  whole  land  of  Ilavilah, 
where  there  is  gold  ; 

12.  And  the  gold  of  that  land  is  good :  there 
is  bdellium  and  the  onyx  stone. 

13.  And  the  name  of  the  second  river  is 
Gihon  :  the  same  is  it  that  compasseth  the  whole 
land  of  Ethiopia. 

14.  And  the  name  of  the  third  river  is  Hidde- 


190  GENESIS. 

kel :  that  is  it  which  goeth  towards  the  east 
of  Assyria^  And  the  fourth  river  is  Euphra- 
tes. 

15.  And  the  Lokd  Grod  took  The  Adam,"  and 
put  him  into  the  garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and 
to  keep  it. 

*  By  translators,  the  man. 

16.  And  the  Lord  God  commanded  The 
Adam,*  saying,  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden 
thou  mayest  freely  eat: 

*  By  translators,  the  man. 

17.  But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the  day 
that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die. 

IS.  And  the  Lokd  God  said,  It  is  not  good 
that  The  Adam  *  should  be  alone.  I  will  make 
him  a  help  meet  for  him. 

*  By  translators,  tJie  man. 

10.  And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God 
formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl 
of  the  air ;  and  brought  them  unto  The  Adam  * 
to  see  what  he  would  call  them :  and  whatsoever 
The  Ada]si''^  called  every  living  creature,  that 
was  the  name  thereof. 

*  By  translators,  Adam. 


GE^STESIS.  1 91 

20.  And  The  Adam  -  gave  names  to  all  cattle, 
and  to  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  every  beast  of 
the  field  ;  and  to  f  Adam  :{:  there  was  not  found 
a  help  meet  for  him. 

*  By  translators,  Adam.  f  By  translators,  'but  for. 

X  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

21.  And  the  Lord  God  caused  a  deep  sleep  to 

fall  upon  The  Adam,^"  and  he  slept :  and  he  took 

one  of  his  ribs,  and  closed  up  the  flesh  instead 

thereof. 

*  By  translators,  Adam. 

22.  And   the   rib,  which   the   Loed    God  had 
[           taken  from  The  Adam,"  made  he  a  w^oman,  and 

brought  her  unto  The  Adam.-j- 

*  By  translators,  ?n«;?.     f  By  translators,  ?7;e  maTi. 

23.  And  TnE  AdxVzm  "^  said,  This  is  now  bone  of 
my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh :  she  shall  be 
called  Woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of 
man  (IIebrew-?'^A). 

I  *  By  translators,  Adam.. 

'  24.  Therefore  shall  a  man  (Uebrew-isA)  leave 

his  father  and  his  mother,  ajid  shall  cleave  unto 
his  wife  :  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh. 

25.  And  "they  were  both  naked.  The  Adam  * 

I  and  his  wife,  and  were  not  ashamed. 

r 

*  By  translators,  the  man. 


192 

GEITESIS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

•3f 

*        «        *        4f        *        *        4f 

8. 

And  they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Loed  God 

walking  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day: 

and 

The  Adam'-^  and  his  w^ife  hid  themselves 

from 

the  presence  of  the  Lord  God  amongst  the 

trees 

of  the  garden. 

*  By  translators,  Adam. 

9. 

And  the  Lord  God  called  unto  The  Adam,* 

and  said  unto  him,  Where  art  thou  ? 

*  By  translators,  Adam. 

•?{• 

*             4f             *             -Sf             *             *             * 

12 

And  The  Adam  *  said,  The  woman  whom 

thou 

gavest  to  he  with  me,  she  gave  me  of  the 

tree, 

and  I  did  eat. 

*  By  translators,  tlie  man. 

•5f 

******* 

17. 

And  unto  Adam*  he  said,  Because  thou 

hast  hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and 

hast  eaten  of  the  tree,  of  which  I  commanded 

thee. 

saying.  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  cursed  is . 

the  ground  for  thy  sake ;  in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat 

^/it 

all  the  days  of  thy  life  : 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

-x- 

******* 

GEI^ESIS.  193 

20.  And  The  Adam  ^  called  his  wife's  name 
Eve  ;  because  she  was  the  mother  of  all  living. 

*  By  translators,  Adam. 

21.  To  *  Adam  f  also  and  to  his  wife  did  the 
Lord  God  make  coats  of  skins,  and  clothed 
them. 

*  By  translators,  urdo.         f  Same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

22.  And  the  Lord  God  said,  Behold,  The 
Adam  *  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and 
evil :  and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand,  and 
take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  for 

ever : 

*  By  translators,  tJie  man. 

4f  **  -H-  4f  *  4<-  ^ 

24.  So  he  drove  out  The  Adam:*  and  he 
placed  at  the  east  of  the  garden  of  Eden  cheru- 
bim, and  a  flaming  sword  which  turned  every 
way,  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life. 

*  By  translators,  the  man. 

■Sf  *  *  -x-  «•  *  -x- 

CHAPTER  lY. 

1.  And  The  Adam  *  knew  Eve  his  wife ;  and 
she  conceived,  and  bare  Cain,  and  said,  I  have 
gotten  a  man  (Ilebrew-z^A)  from  the  Lord. 

*  By  translators,  Adam. 


194  GENESIS. 

25.  And  Adam  *  knew  his  wife  again ;  and  she 
bare  a  son,  and  called  his  name  Seth  :  For  God, 
said  she^  hath  appointed  me  another  seed  instead 
of  Abel,  whom  Cain  slew. 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

CHAPTEE   Y. 

1.  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of 
Adam.*  In  the  day  that  God  created  ADAM,t 
in  the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him  : 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English,  f  By  translators,  man. 

2.  Male  and  female  created  he  them ;  and 
blessed  them,  and  called  their  name  ADAM,"^  in 
the  day  when  they  were  created. 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

3.  And  Adam*  lived  a  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  and  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after 
his  image  ;  and  called  his  name  Seth : 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

4.  And  the  days  of  Adam  *  after  he  had  be- 
gotten Seth  were  eight  hundred  years :  and  he 
begat  sons  and  daughters : 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 


GENESIS.  195 

5.  And  all  the  days  that  Adam*  lived  were 
niue  hundred  and  thirty  years :  and  he  died. 

*  The  same  in  Hebrew  and  English. 

CHAPTEE    YI. 

1.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  The  Ada^i  *  be- 
gan to  multiply  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
daughters  were  born  unto  them, 

*  By  translators,  men. 

2.  That  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters  of 
The  Adam  *  that  they  were  fair ;  and  they  took 
them  wives  of  all  which  they  chose. 

*  By  translators,  men. 

3.  And  the  Lord  said,  My  Spirit  shall  not  al- 
ways strive  with  Adam,*  for  that  he  also  is  flesh : 
yet  his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years. 

*  By  translators,  ma7i. 

4.  There  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those 
days ;  and  also  after  that,  when  the  sons  of  God 
came  in  unto  the  daughters  of  The  Ada^i,*  and 
they  bare  children  to  them,  the  same  became 
mighty  men  {llebrew-ish)  which  were  of  old, 
men  (Kebrew-ish)  of  renown. 

*  By  translators,  men. 


196  GENESIS. 

5.  And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  The 
Adam  ^  vms  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every 
imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only 
evil  continually. 

*  By  translators,  man. 

6.  And  it  repented  the  Loed  that  he  had  made 
The  Adam  *  on  the  earth,  and  it  grieved  him  at 

his  heart. 

*  By  translators,  man. 

7.  And  the  Loed  said,  I  will  destroy  The 
Adam  ^  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  of  the 
earth ;  Feom  Adajm  unto  f  beast,  and  the  creeping 
thing,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air ;  for  it  repenteth 
me  that  I  have  made  them. 

*  By  translators,  ma?i.      f  By  translators,  doth  man  and. 

CHAPTER  YII. 

21.  And  all  flesh  died  that  moved  upon  the 
earth,  both*  of  fowl,  and  of  cattle,  and  of 
beast,  and  of  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth,  and  every  The  Adam  :  * 

*  By  translators,  man. 

23.  And  every  living  substance  was  destroyed 
which  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground,  both 


GENESIS.  197 

Adam,"^  and  cattle,  and  tlie  creeping  things,  and 
the  fowl  of  the  heaven ;  and  they  were  destroyed 
from  the  earth :  and  ISToah  only  remained  alive, 
and  they  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark. 

*  By  translators,  man. 

CHAPTER   YIIT. 

21.  And  the  Lord  smelled  a  sweet  savour ;  and 
the  LoED  said  in  his  heart,  I  will  not  again  curse 
the  ground  any  more  for  The  Ada3i's  ^  sake ;  for 
the  imagination  of  The  Adam's  ^  heart  is  evil 
from  his  youth  :  neither  will  I  again  smite  any 
more  every  thing  living,  as  I  have  done. 

*  By  translators,  mart's. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

5.  And  surely  your  blood  of  your  lives  will  I 
require  :  at  the  hand  of  every  beast  will  I  require 
it,  and  at  the  hand  of  The  Adam  ;  *  at  the  hand 
of  every  man's  (Hebrew-^'^A)  brother  will  I  re- 
quire the  life  of  The  Ada^i.* 

*  By  translators,  man. 


198  GENESIS. 

6.  Whoso  sheddetli  The  Adam's^  blood,  by 
Adam  f  shall  his  blood  be  shed :  for  in  the  image 
of  God  made  he  The  Adam,  f 

*By  translators,  man^s.        f  By  translators,  man. 

CHAPTEE  XI. 

5.  And  the  Lord  came  down  to  see  the  city 

and  the  tower,  which  the  children  of  The  Adam  * 

builded. 

*  By  translators,  men. 


HOW  THE  BIBLE  HAS   COME  TO 

US. 

Regarding  the  Hebrew  kind  as  being 
the  sole  agent  of  God  to  bring  into  exist- 
ence  and  present  to  man  His  inspired  word 
of  the  Old  Testament,  it  becomes  interest- 
ing to  follow  up  tlie  autograph  manuscripts 
on  parchment  of  the  inspired  writers  and 
their  copies  to  the  present  day,  and  ascer- 
tain, as  far  as  possible,  how  much  of  them 
are  retained  in  our  translations.  These 
manuscripts  have  long  since  disappeared, 
and  none  of  them  now  exist.  We  have, 
therefore,  to  depend  upon  the  apograph 
copies,  and  upon  the  multiplied  copies 
made  from  them  at  various  periods;  and 
finally,  for  ourselves,  depend  upon  their 
translations  into  the  English  language. 

Whoever  reads  any  translation  for  the 


200     HOW  THE    BIBLE    HAS    COME    TO    US. 

mere  purpose  of  criticism,  would  do  well 
not  to  read  at  all.  But  lie  who  reads  to 
discover  the  true  meaning,  may  be  com- 
pelled to  criticise  and  even  complain. 
Fundamentally,  we  regard  the  reading  of 
Scripture  should  be  governed  by  two  rules  : 

First.  Whatever  relates  to  natural 
facts  should  be  read  as  agreeing  with  the 
developed  acts  of  God  in  Nature,  except 
they  be  claimed  as  special  departures  re- 
corded as  miracles. 

Second.  Whatever  relates  to  morals 
should  be  read  under  the  strict  control  of 
moral  responsibility,  imprinted  by  God  on 
the  conscience  of  every  individual. 

If  the  Scripture  was  read  under  these 
two  rules,  we  should  have  deeper  study 
into  Nature  where  God  transcribes  for 
Himself,  and  less  of  general  and  more  of 
■pointed  criticism  to  correct  whatever  of 
wix)ng  may  have  crept  into  translations  by 
intention  or  accident  of  men. 


HOW   THE   BIBLE   HAS    COME    TO    US.     201 

Tlie  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  first  written  in  the  Hebrew  lansruao^e, 
and  has  been  continued  and  preserved  in 
that  language  to  the  present  day.  Some 
slio-ht  chansres  have  been  made  in  the  forms 
of  the  letters  and  in  other  respects,  to  ren- 
der the  reading  more  exact  and  compre- 
hensive. All,  however,  agree,  with  very 
few  dissenters,  comparatively,  that  the 
Hebrew  text  is  a  daguerrotype  of  all  the 
inspired  ideas,  and  may  be  set  down  as  ab- 
solutely correct  in  this  respect.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  inform  the  reader  that  some 
errors  in  transcription  may  have  been,  and 
probably  were  made,  and  may  have  been 
continued. 

Regarding  the  scrupulous  care  taken  of 
them,  it  is  equally  reasonable  to  suj^pose 
that  those  errors  would  have  been  discov- 
ered in  the  lifetime  of  the  parchment  on 
which  they  were  written,  and  hence  cor- 
rected.     This   may  be   said  more   partic- 


202     HOW  THE   BIBLE   HAS    COME   TO    US. 

ularly  of  tlie  Pentateucli,  wliich  contains 
the  Genesis.  It  was  lield  in  great  venera- 
tion by  the  Jews,  and  was  read  in  their 
synagogues  from  the  earliest  times. 

These  copies  were  of  two  kinds — those 
for  the  use  of  the  synagogue,  and  those  for 
the  use  of  private  individuals;  the  first 
being  made  on  skins  and  in  rolls,  the 
second  being  on  vellum,  parchment,  or  on 
paper,  in  a  square  form. 

HOW   COPIES    WEEE    MADE. 

We  quote  from  Home,  In.,  vol.  i.  p.  216  : 
"  The  copies  of  the  law  must  be  transcribed 
from  ancient  manuscrvpts  of  approved 
charaGter  only^  with  pure  ink,  on  parch- 
ment prepared  from  the  hide  of  a  clean 
animal,  for  this  express  purpose,  by  a  Jew, 
and  fastened  together  by  the  strings  of 
clean  animals :  every  skin  must  contain  a 
certain  number  of  columns  of  prescribed 
length  and  breadth,  each  column  compris- 
ing a  given  number  of  lines  and  words :  no 


HOW   THE   BIBLE   HAS    COME   TO    US.       203 

word  must  be  written  by  heart  or  with 
points;  or  without  being  first  orally  pro- 
nounced by  the  copyist :  the  name  of  God 
is  not  to  be  written  but  with  the  utmost 
devotion  and  attention,  and  previously  to 
writing  it,  he  must  wash  Ms  jpen.  The 
want  of  a  single  letter,  or  the  redundance 
of  a  single  letter,  the  writing  of  prose  as 
verse  or  verse  as  prose,  respectively, 
vitiates  a  manuscript :  and  when  a  copy 
has  been  completed,  it  must  be  examined 
and  corrected  within  thirty  days  after  the 
writing  has  been  finished,  in  order  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  is  to  be  approved  or  re- 
jected. These  rules,  it  is  said,  are  ob- 
served to  the  present  day  by  those  who 
transcribe  the  sacred  writings  for  the  use 
of  the  synagogue.  The  form  of  one  of 
these  rolled  manuscripts  (from  the  original 
among  the  Harleian  MSS.  in  the  British 
Museum,  No.  7619)  is  here  given: 


204    HOW   THE   BIBLE   HAS    COME   TO   US. 

"  It  is  a  large  double  roll  containing  the 
Hebrew  Pentateuch,  written  with  great 
care  on  forty  African  skins.  These  skins 
are  of  -different  breadths,  some  containing 
more  columns  than  others.  The  columns 
are  one  Imndred  and  ffty-three  in  number, 
each  of  which  contains  about  sixty-three 
lines ^  is  about  twenty-two  inches  deep,  and 
generally  more  than  ^nq  inches  broad. 
The  letters  have  no  points,  apices,  or  flour- 
ishes about  them.  The  initial  words  are 
not  larger  than  the  rest ;  and  a  space  equal 
to  about  four  lines  is  left  between  every 
two  books.  Altogether,  this  is  one  of  the 
finest  synagogue  rolls  that  has  been  pre- 
served to  the  present  time. 

THE    SQUAEE   MANUSCEIPTS, 

which  are  in  private  use,  are  written  with 
black  ink — either  on  vellum  or  on  parch- 
ment or  on  paper,  and  of  various  sizes 
— folio,    quarto,   octavo,    and    duodecimo. 


HOW  THE   BIBLE    HAS    COME    TO    US.     205 

Those  which  are  copied  on  paper  are  con- 
sidered as  belonging  to  the  most  modern ; 
and  frequently  have  some  one  of  the  Tar- 
gums  or  Chaldee  paraphrases,  either  sub- 
joined to  the  text  in  alternate  verse,  or 
placed  in  parallel  columns  with  the  text ; 
or  written  in  the  margin  of  the  manuscript. 
The  characters  are  for  the  most  j)art  called 
the  square  Chaldee ;  though  a  few  manu- 
scripts are  written  with  rabbinical  charac- 
ters, but  these  are  invariably  of  recent 
date. 


"Of  the  various  Hebrew  manuscripts 
which  have  been  preserved,  few  contain 
the  Old  Testament  entire ;  the  greater  part 
comj)rise  only  particular  portions  of  it,  as 
the  Pentateuch,  five  Magilloth  and  Haph- 
taroth  or  sections  of  the  Prophets,  which 
are  read  on  the  Sabbath  days ;  the 
Prophets  or  the  Hagiographa." 


206     HOW    THE    BIBLE   HAS    COME    TO    US. 
THE     GREEK    MAT>rUSCRIPTS. 

The  same  author  remarks :  "  The  Greek 
manuscripts  which  have  descended  to  our 
time  are  written  either  on  vellum  or  on 
paper ;  that  their  external  forms  vary  like 
the  manuscripts  of  other  ancient  authors. 
The  vellum  is  either  purple-colored  or  of 
its  natural  hue,  and  is  either  thick  or  thin. 
Manuscripts  on  very  thin  vellum  were 
always  held  in  the  highest  esteem.  The 
paper  also  is  either  made  of  cotton  or  the 
common  sort  manufactured  of  linen,  and  is 
either  glazed  or  laid  (as  it  is  technically 
termed)  ;  that  is,  of  the  ordinary  roughness. 
Not  more  than  six  manuscript  fragments 
on  purple  vellum  are  known  to  be  extant. 

•Jf  -Sf  -Jf  -Jf  ■??• 

"  Nearly  the  same  mode  of  spelling  ob- 
tains in  ancient  manuscripts  which  prevails 
in  Greek  printed  books. 

*  -Sf  ^  -Sf  * 

"Very  few  manuscripts  contain  the  whole 


HOW   THE   BIBLE   HAS    COME   TO    US.     207 

of  either  the  Old  or  New  Testaments.  By 
far,  the  greater  part  have  only  the  four 
Gospels,  because  they  were  most  frequently 
read  in  churches  ;  others  comprise  only  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  catholic 
epistles ;  others,  again,  have  the  Acts,  and 
St.  Paul's  Epistles;  but  a  few  contain  the 
Apocalypse,  in  connection  with  other  books, 
and  fewer  still  contain  it  alone,  as  this  book 
was  seldom  read  in  the  churches.  Almost 
all  of  them,  especially  the  now  ancient 
manuscripts,  are  imperfect,  either  from  the 
injuries  of  time  or  from  neglect. 

4f  ^-  *  '^  ^' 

"  All  manuscripts,  the  most  ancient  not 
excepted,  have  erasures  and  corrections; 
which,  how  ever,  were  not  effaced  so  dexter- 
ously, but  that  the  original  writing  may 
sometimes  be  seen.  When  these  altera- 
tions have  been  made  by  the  copyist  of  the 
manuscript,  they  are  preferable  to  those 
made  by  later  hands.     These  erasures  were 


208     HOW   THE   BIBLE   HAS    OOME   TO    TJS. 

sometimes  made  by  drawing  a  line  througli 
tlie  word,  or  what  is  tenfold  worse,  by  tlie 
penknife.  But  besides  tliese  modes  of  ob- 
literation, the  coj^yist  frequently  blotted 
out  the  old  ^witing  with  a  sponge,  and 
Avrote  other  words  in  lieu  of  it ;  nor  was 
this  practice  confined  to  a  single  letter  or 
word.  ^  "^  '^'  Authentic  instances  are 
on  record  in  which  whole  books  have  been 
obliterated,  and  other  writing  has  been  thus 
substituted  in  the  place  of  the  manuscript 
so  blotted  out ;  but  when  the  writing  was 
already  faded  with  age,  they  preserved 
these  manuscripts  without  further  erasure. 


THE    GEEEK    SCEIPTUEES. 

"  Of  the  few  manuscripts  known  to  be 
extant  which  contain  the  Greek  Scriptures 
(that  is,  the  Old  Testament  according  to 
the  Septuagint  version,  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament), there  are  two  which  pre-eminently 


now   THE    BIBLE   HAS    COIME   TO    US.     209 

demand  tlie  attention  of  tlie  Biblical  stu- 
dent, for  their  antiquity  and  intrinsic 
value,  viz.  :  The  Alexandrian  manuscrij^t, 
which  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  the  Vatican  manuscript  deposited  in 
the  library  of  the  Vatican  Palace  at  Rome." 
It  will  be  seen  that  these  manuscripts  are 
founded  in  inspiration,  and  that  the  He- 
brew has  greatly  the  advantage  in  the  ac- 
cui'acy  of  its  transmission  over  the  Greek. 
These  differences  we  shall  not  enter  into ; 
first,  because  we  do  not^  possess  the  knowl- 
edge requisite  to  do  so;  and,  second,  this 
is  beyond  the  range  of  our  subject.  Al- 
most all  writers,  however,  seem  to  agree 
that  the  Hebrew  inspiration  has  been  trans- 
mitted in  comparative  purity,  and  on  that 
we  have  depended  for  our  purposes. 


THE  PIEST  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 

coyeedale's  bible. 

BiBLiA.  The  Bible,  that  is,  the  Holy- 
Scripture  of  the  Olde  and  New  Testament 
faithfully  and  truly  translated  out  of  the 
Douche  and  Latyn  in  to  the  Englishe. 
[Zurich]  M.D.  XXXV.  folio. 

Home  In.,  vol.  ii.,  Part  1,  Chap.  I.,  p. 
84  :  "  This  first  English  translation  of  the 
entire  Bible  was  made  from  the  Latin  and 
German,  and  dedicated  to  King  Henry  the 
VIII.  by  Myles  Coverdale,  who  was  greatly 
esteemed  for  his  piety,  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  diligent  preaching;  on  ac- 
count of  which  quality.  King  Edward  VI. 
subsequently  advanced  him  to  the  See  of 
Exeter.  -^  ^  ^  He  further  declared  that  he 


THE   bishop's   bible.  211 

had  neitlier  wrested  nor  altered  so  much  as 
one  word  for  the  maintenance  of  any  man- 
ner of  sect,  but  had  with  a  clean  conscience 
translated  out  of  the  foregoing  interpre- 
ters, having  only  before  his  eyes  the  main- 
tenance of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  ^  ^  ^'  This 
is  the  first  English  Bible  allowed  by  royal 
authority  in  the  year  1536." 

THE    bishop's    bible. 

This  being  the  Bible  from  which  our 
King  James  version  was  mainly  taken,  we 
will  go  no  further  back  to  speak  of  other 
versions  in  the  modern  European  languages. 
Home  says,  vol.  ii..  Part  1,  Chap.  L,  p. 
36  :  "In  the  year  1568,  the  Bible  j^roj^osed 
by  Archbishop  Parker  three  years  before, 
was  comj^leted.  This  edition,  according  to 
Le  Long,  was  undertaken  by  royal  com- 
mand. ■^'*  "^^  ^'  In  the  performance,  distinct 
portions  of  the  Bible,  at  least  fifteen  in 
number,   were   allotted   to   select   men   of 


212  THE    KIUTG   JAMES    BIBLE. 

learning  and  abilities,  appointed,  as  Fuller 
says,  by  the  Queen's  commission;  but  it 
still  remains  uncertain  who,,  and  whether 
one  or  more,  revised  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament.  Eight  of  the  persons  employed 
were  bishops,  whence  the  book  was  called 
the  '  Bishop's  Bible,'  or  the  '  Great  English 
Bible.'  " 

THE    KING   JAMES    BIBLE. 

The  same  author  continues:  "The  last 
English  version  that  remains  to  be  noticed 
is  the  authorized  translation  now  in  use, 
which  is  commonly  called  King  James's 
Bible.  He  succeeded  to  the  throne  of 
England  in  1602  :  and  several  objections 
having  been  made  to  the  Bishop's  Bible, 
at  the  conference  held  at  Hampton  Court 
in  1603,  the  king  in  the  following  year 
gave  orders  for  the  undertaking  of  a  new 
version,  and  fifty-four  learned  men  were 
appointed  to  this  imj)ortant  labor ;  but  be- 
fore it  was  completed,  seven  of  the  persons 


THE    KING   JA]\rES    BIBLE.  213 

nominated  were  either  dead  or  had  declined 
the  task ;  for  the  list  as  given  by  Fuller 
comprises  only  forty-seven  names.  All  of 
them,  however,  were  pre-eminently  distin- 
guished for  their  piety,  and  for  their  pro- 
found learnino;  in  the  orio;inal  lano-uao^es  of 
the  sacred  writino-s.  And  such  of  them  as 
survived  till  the  commencement  of  the 
work,  were  divided  into  six  classes.  Ten 
were  to  meet  at  Westminster,  and  to  trans- 
late from  the  Pentateuch  to  the  Second 
Book  of  Kings.  Eight  assembled  at  Cam- 
bridge, were  to  finish  the  rest  of  the  His- 
torical Books,  and  the  Hagiographa.  At 
Oxford,  seven  were  to  undertake  the  four 
greater  prophets,  with  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah,  and  the  twelve  minor  prophets. 
The  four  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Apocryj)ha,  were  assigned  to  an- 
other company  of  eight,  also  at  Oxford  ; 
and  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  together  with 
the     remaining     canonical    epistles,    were 


214  ESrSTEUCTIONS. 

allotted  to  another  company  of  seven,  at 
Westminster.  Lastly,  another  company  at 
Cambridge  were  to  translate  the  apocry- 
phal books,  including  the  prayer  of  Man- 
asseh.  To  these  six  companies  of  venerable 
translators  the  king  gave  the  following 

INSTEUCTIONS. 

"  ^  1.  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the 
church,  commonly  called  the  Bishop's  Bible, 
to  he  followed^  and  as  little  altered  as  the 
original  will  permit. 

" '  2.  The  names  of  the  prophets  and  the 
holy  writers,  with  the  other  names  of  the 
text,  to  be  retained,  as  near  as  may  be  ac- 
cordingly, as  they  are  vulgarly  used. 

" '  3.  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be 
kept,  as  the  word  church  not  to  be  trans- 
lated congregation. 

" '  4.  Where  any  word  hath  divers  signi- 
fications that  to  be  kept  which  hath  been 
most  commonly  used  by  the  most  eminent 


INSTRUCTIONS.  215 

fathers,  being  agreeable  to  tlie  propriety 
of  tlie  place  and  tlie  analogy  of  faith. 

" '  5.  The  division  of  the  chapters  to  be 
altered  either  not  at  all,  or  as  little  as  may 
be,  if  necessity  so  require. 

"  ^  6.  ISTo  marginal  notes  at  all  to  be 
affixed,  but  only  for  the  explanation  of  the 
Hebrew  or  Greek  word,  which  cannot  with- 
out some  circumlocution  so  briefly  and  fitly 
be  expressed  in  the  text. 

^' '  7.  Such  quotations  of  places  to  be  mar- 
ginally set  down  as  shall  serve  for  the  fit 
references  of  one  scripture  to  another. 

"  '  8.  Every  particular  man  of  each  com- 
pany to  take  the  same  chapter  or  chapters, 
and  having  translated  or  amended  them 
severally  by  himself  where  he  thinks  good, 
all  to  meet  together  to  confer  what  they 
have  done,  and  agree  for  their  j)art  what 
shall  stand. 

" '  9.  As  any  one  company  hath  de- 
spatched  any   one   book   in   this   manner, 


216  INSTEUCTIO]S"S. 

tliey  shall  send  it  to  tlie  rest  to  be  considered 
of  seriously  and  judiciously,  for  his  majesty 
is  very  careful  on  this  point. 

"  ^  10.  If  any  company,  upon  the  review 
of  the  book  so  sent,  shall  doubt  or  differ 
upon  any  places,  to  send  them  word  thereof, 
to  note  the  places,  and  then  withal  to  send 
their  reasons ;  to  which,  if  they  consent  not, 
the  difference  to  be  compounded  at  the  gen- 
eral meeting,  which  is  to  be  of  the  chief 
persons  of  each  company,  at  the  end  of  the 
work. 

"^11.  When  any  place  of  special  obscu- 
rity is  doubted  of,  letters  to  be  directed  by 
authority,  to  send  to  any  learned  in  the 
land  for  his  judgment  in  such  a  place. 

"'12.  Letters  to  be  sent  from  any  bishop 
to  the  rest  of  his  clergy  admonishing  them 
of  the  translation  in  hand,  and  to  move 
and  charge  as  many  as  being  skilful  in  the 
tongues  have  taken  pains  in  that  kind,  to 
send  them  particular  observation  to  the  com- 


n^STEucTioifs.  217 


pany,  either  at  Westminster,  Cambridge, 
or  Oxford,  according  as  it  was  directed 
before  in  the  King's  letter  to  tlie  Arch- 
bishop. 

"  ^  13.  The  directors  of  each  company  to 
be  the  Deans  of  Westminster,  and  Chester 
for  Westminster,  and  the  King's  professors 
in  Hebrew  and  Greek  in  the  two  univer- 
sities. 

"  '  14.  These  translations  to  be  used  when 
they  agree  better  with  the  text  than  the 
Bishop's  Bible ;  viz.,  Tindal's,  Coverdale's, 
Matthew's,  Whitchurch's,  Geneva. 

" '  15.  Besides  the  said  directors  before 
mentioned,  three  or  four  of  the  most  an- 
cient and  grave  divines  of  either  of  the 
universities  not  employed  in  translating,  to 
be  assigned  by  the  vice-chancellor  upon 
conference  mth  the  rest  of  the  heads,  to  be 
overseers  of  the  translation,  as  well  Hebrew 
as  Greek  for  the  better  observation  of  the 
4th  rule  above  specified.' 

10 


218  THE    KING   JAMES   BIBLE. 

"  Tlie  translation  commenced  in  the 
spring  of  1607,  and  tlie  completion  of  it 
occupied  almost  three  years." 

The  whole  theory  of  these  regal  instruc- 
tions, and  the  effort,  has,  in  our  humble 
judgment,  been  grounded  in  a  radical  error. 
That  error  consisted  in  this:  They  were 
directed,  if  we  read  those  directions  rightly, 
to  follow  the  Bishop's  Bible  mainly.  This 
is  the  incidental  error.  But  the  vital  one 
was,  that  they  were  to  translate  according 
to  their  best  understanding,  derived  from 
their  knowledge  of  the  original  tongues; 
and,  where  differences  of  opinion  existed,  to 
compound  those  differences.  We  think  all 
readers  will  agree  that  this  was  the  sub- 
stance of  the  instructions. 

Suppose,  as  is  claimed  by  some  writers, 
that  there  was  but  one  skilled  Hebraist 
(Lively)  among  the  vv^hole  number  of  trans- 
lators, and  as  he  died  before  much  was 
done,  there  was  then  not  one.     That  on  his 


THE    XmO    JAMES    BIBLE.  219 

death,  Iliigli  Brougliton,  fellow  of  Christ 
College,  Cambridge,  the  only  remaining 
skilled  Hebraist  in  England,  proffered  his 
assistance  in  the  important  work,  and  his 
services  were  rejected.  Assuming  these  as 
facts,  in  what  condition  was  this  body  of 
translators  to  transcribe  the  pure  word  of 
God  from  the  Hebrew?  The  answer  may 
be  found  in  one  point,  at  least,  in  the  elim- 
inations and  substitutions  which  passed 
through  their  hands  in  the  Genesis  which 
we  have  pointed  out. 

All  of  them  were  undoubtedly  skilled 
Greek  and  Latin  scholars  ;  and  the  strong 
inference  is,  that  they  were  guided  by  the 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  versions  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  set  aside  entirely  the  orig- 
inal Hebrew.  Tliis  is  certainly  the  most 
charitable  conclusion  to  arrive  at,  under  all 
the  circumstances.  Nor  can  they  1)e  held 
reprehensibly  responsible  as  faithful  trans- 
lators, if  they  followed  the  instructions  of 


220  TILE   Km  a   JAMES    BIBLE. 

His  Royal  Higliness,  King  James.  They 
entered  upon  their  task  in  regal  fetters, 
and  emerged  from  it,  producing  what  he 
commanded. 

The  bare  idea  of  ^'compounding"  the 
word  of  God  to  us  is  so  repulsive,  that 
we  may  sj)eak  too  strong  on  the  subject. 
There  is  no  positive  proof,  so  far  as  we 
know,  that  any  portion  of  the  Scripture 
was  so  compounded.  The  instructions, 
however,  under  which  these  translators 
acted,  whether  they  followed  them  or  not, 
throws  a  dark  cloud  of  distrust  over  what 
they  produced,  or  even  let  pass  through  their 
hands.  For  we  do  not  know  what  was,  or 
what  was  not,  compounded;  what  was,  or 
what  was  not,  translated  from  original 
tongues,  or  what  was  blindly  followed  from 
the  Bisho23's  Bible.  If  those  instructions 
had  been  simple,  and  to  the  effect  that  the 
translators  were  to  make  a  faithful  trans- 
lation from  the  original  tongues,  and  any 


THE    KING    JAMES    BIBLE.  221 

portions  clearly  doubtful  should  be  init 
down  in  the  original  letters  and  words,  to 
be  left  for  future  exj^lauations,  the  result 
would  have  been  different,  and  such  a 
course  would  have  secured  the  confidence 
of  the  Christian  world. 

At  the  time  of  this  translation,  but  little 
attention  was  ,  paid  to  the  study  of  the 
Hebrew.  It  has  since  received  more  con- 
sideration, and  the  land  now  abounds  with 
skilled  Hebraists.  This  has  brought  out 
many  valuable  criticisms,  and  there  never 
has  been  a  time  more  opportune  than  the 
present  enlightened  age  to  collate  all  of 
them  that  will  bear  the  test  of  truth,  and 
present  the  word  of  God  as  nearly  pure,  if 
not  altogether  so,  as  the  work  of  man  can 
make  it.  This,  however,  can  never  he  done 
to  o-ain  the  entire  confidence"  of  the  Chris- 
tian  world,  under  the  direction  of  any  sect, 
or  of  any  self-constituted  body  of  men. 

We   have  already  of  admitted  truth  a 


222  THE   KmO   JAMES    BIBLE. 

vast  book,  with  comparatively  few  errors. 
THese  should  be  gradually  eradicated  when 
they  become  definitely  settled  upon  as 
errors.  How  is  this  to  be  done  ?  Not  by 
any  regal  authority  or  regal  command. 
Not  by  any  relfgious  sect,  nor  by  any  self- 
constituted  body,  nor  by  any  one  man. 
The  Bible  is  the  common  inheritance  of  all 
Christians,  and  the  Old  Testament,  of  the 
Hebrews.  We  hope  to  live  and  see  the 
dawn  of  that  day,  when  those  who  are 
most  interested  in  the  correction  of  these 
errors  shall  move  to  a  conference  upon 
them.  That  this  conference  shall  be  open 
to  every  Christian  denomination  through- 
out the  world,  and  to  the  Hebrews  on  the 
Old  Testament.  If  this  attempt  be  made, 
let  no  king,  potentate,  sect,  or  man  control 
the  undertaking.  Let  the  word  of  God 
control. 

THE   END. 


NEW    BOOKS 


AND   NEW  EDITIONS 


RECENTLY  ISSUED   BY 


G.  W.  Carleton  &  Co.,  Publishers, 

Madison  Square,  New  York, 


The  Publisliers,  upon  receipt  of  the  price  in  advance,  will  send  any  book  on  this 
Catalogue  by  rci&W,  Jfostag-e  free,  to  any  part  of  the  United  States. 


All  books  in  this  list  [unless  otherwise  specified]  are  handsomely  bound  in  cloth 
board  binding,  with  gilt  backs,  suitable  for  libraries. 


Mary  J.  Holmes'  Works 


TEMPEST  AND  SUNSHINE $1  50 

ENGLISH  ORPHANS I  50 

HOMESTEAD  ON  THE  HILLSIDE I  50 

'LENA  RIVERS I  50 

MEADOW  BROOK I  50 

DORA  DEANE I  50 

COUSIN  MAUDE I  50 

MARIAN  GRAY I  50 

Marion  Harland's  Works. 


DARKNESS  AND  DAYLIGHT $1  50 

HUGH  WORTHINGTON I    50 

CAMERON   PRIDE I   50 

ROSE    MATHER I    50 

ETHELYN'S    MISTAKE X   50 

MILLBANK I   50 

EDNA   BROWNING (nCw) I   50 


ALONE §1  50 

HIDDEN    PATH I  50 

MOSS    SIDE I  50 

NEMESIS I  50 

MIRIAM I  50 

AT   LAST I  SO 

HELEN   GARDNER I  50 


SUNNYBANK $1    50 

HUSBANDS   AND  HOMES I    SO 

ruby's   HUSBAND 1    50 

phemie's  temptation Z  SO 

THE   EMPTY   HEART I    *0 

TRUE   AS   STEEL Cnew) X    50 

JES5AMAINE....  (just  published) "  I  50 

Charles  Dickens'  Works. 

Carleton' s  Neiv  Illustrated  Edition** 


THE  PICKWICK  PAPERS %\   50 

OLIVER   TWIST 1    50 

DAVID   COl'PERFIELD I    50 

GREAT  EXPECTATIONS 1    50 

DOKBEY   AND    SON I    50 

BARNABY  RUDGE X    50 

NICHOLAS   NICKLEBY I    50 

OLD  CURIOSITY  SHOP X   50 

BLEAK   HOUSE X   SO 

UTTLK  DORRIT X50 


BaULAH . . 
MACARIA. 
DTEZ 


MARTIN   CHUZZLKWIT. $1   50 

OUR   MUTUAL  FRIEND X    50 

TALE   OF   TWO  CITIES IS© 

CHRISTMAS    BOOKS X50 

SKETCHES   BY   "  BOZ  " X   50 

HARI    TIMES,  etc X    50 

PICTURES  OF   ITALY,  etc I   50 

UNCOMMERCIAL  TRAVBLLKS X50 

EDWIN    DROOD,  etc I    50 

MISCELLANIES ...  X   50 

Ang^usta  J.  Evans'  NoTels. 

9l    75  I  ST.    ELMO ..fa  OC 

, X  75    VASHTi (new) toe 

I  75  I 


G.    W.   CARLETON  &*  CO:s  PUBLICATIONS, 


Captain  Mayne  I&eid  — Illnstrated. 


SCALP  HUNTERS $1  50 

WAR   TRAII I    50 

hunter's  feast 1  50 

TIGER    HUNTER I    50 

OSCKOLA,    THE   SEMINOLE I   50 

THE   QUADROON 1    50 

BANGERS   AND   REGULATORS I    50 

WHITE   GAUNTLET I    50 


WHITE    CHIEF fl  50 

HEADLESS     HORSEMAN I    JO 

LOST    LENORE 1    50 

WOOD    RANGERS 1    50 

WILD    HUNTRESS 1    5C 

THE    MAROON.... I    50 

RIFLB   RANGERS ,.  X    50 

WILD   LIFE I    50 


A.  S.  Roe's  IVorks. 


A   LONG   LOOK  AHEAD $1  50 

TO   LOVE   AND  TO   BE   LOVED I  50 

TIME   AND    TIDE I  50 

I'vE   BEEN  THINKING 1  50 

THE   STAR   AND  THE   CLOUD I  50 

HOW  COULD  HE    HELP   IT I  50 


TRUE   TO   THE   LAST $1    30 

LIKE   AND    UNLIKE I50 

LOOKING    AROUND ,.      I    50 

WOMAN    OUR -ANGEL I    50 

THE   CLOUD   ON    THE   HEART I    $0 

RESOLUTION (new) I  50 


Hand-Books  of  Society. 

THE  HABITS  OF  GOOD  SOCIETY.      The  nice  points  of  taste  and  good  manners, 

and  the  art  of  making  oneself  agreeable ._ $i  75 

THE  ART  OF  CONVERSATION. — A  Sensible  work,  for  every  one  who  wishes  to  be 

either  an  agreeable  talker  or  listener i  50 

THE  ARTS  OF  WRITING,  READING,  AND  SPEAKING. — An  excellent  book  for  Self- 

instruction  and  improvement _. .      i  50 

A  NEW    DIAMOND  EDITION  of   the  abovc  three  popular  books. — Snail  size, 

elegantly  bound,  and  put  in  a  box 3  00 

Mrs.  Mill's  Coolt  Book. 

M»s.  A.  P.  hill's  new  cookery  BOOK,  and  family  domestic  receipts fa  00 

Cliarlotte   Bronte    and    Miss    Mulocli. 

Shirley.— Author  of  JaneEyre....$i  75  |  John  Halifax,  Gentleman fi  75 

Mrs,    N.    S.    Emerson. 

Betsey  and  I  are  Out— And  other  Poems.     A  Thanksgiving  Story $1  50 

liOUisa  M.  Alcott, 
MORNING  glories-=A  Tjeautifui  juvenile,  by  tne  author  of  "  L,ictie "Women    1  50 

The  Crusoe  Books— Famous  "Star  Edition." 

ROBINSON  CRUSOE. — New  illustrated  edition.. $1  50 

SWISS    FAMILY   ROBINSON.  Do.  Do       I    SO 

THE  ARABIAN   NIGHTS.  Do.  Do      I50 

Julie  P.  Smith's  Novels. 

WIDOW   goldsmith's   DAUGHTER,...^ I    75  I  THE   WIDOWER §1    75 

CHRIS   AND.  OTHO I    75      THE   MARRIES    BELLB I    75 

TEN  OLD  MAIDS [in  press] ....    1  75  1 

Artemns  Ward's  Comic  "Works. 

ARTEMUS  WARD — HIS   BOOK $1    50  I  ARTEMUS   WARD — IN    LONDON f  I   50 

AKTEMU6   WARD — HIS  TRAVELS I    50  |  ARTEMUS   WARD — HIS   PANORAMA...     1    50 

Fanny  Fern's  W^orks. 

FOLLY  AS   IT   FLIES $1    50  I  CAPER-SAUCE (new) $1    50 

GINGERSNAPS I    50  |  A  MEMORIAL. — By  JaMES  PartOn. . .     2   00 

Josli  Billings'  Comic  W^orks. 

JOSH   billings'    proverbs $1    50  I  JOSH  BILLINGS  FARMER'S  ALMINAX,  25  CtS. 

JOSH  KILLINGS  ON  ICE I  50  1  (In  paper  co\ers.) 

Verdant  Green, 

A.  racy  English  college  story — with  numerous  comic  illustrations $1  50 

Popular  Italian  Novels. 

DOCTOS  ANTONIO. — A  love  story  of  Italy.     By  Ruffini $1  75 

BEATRICE  CENCi. — By  Guerrazzi.     With  a  steel  Portrait i  75 

M.  Mlchelet's  Remarkable  Works. 

LOVE  (l'amoup). — English  translation  from  the  original  French $1  50 

WOMAN     (LA  Ip-EMME).  Do.  Do.  Do ISO 


G.   W.   CARLE  TON  dr*  CO:S  PUBLICATIONS 


Ernest  Reiian'n  Frencli  AForks. 

THE   lAVK  OF  JESUS .'Jl    75  I   LIFE   OK    SAINT    PAUL $1    75 

LIVES   OF   THE   APOSTLES I    75  |   BIliLE    IN    INDIA.       By  JaCoUiot 2    CX) 

Geo.  W.  Carleton. 

OUR  ARTIST  IN  CUBA.— With  50  coiiiic  illustrations  of  life  and  customs §t  50 

OUR   ARTIST  IN    PERU.  Do.  Do.  Do.  ,.     1    50 


OUR  ARTIST  IN  AFRICA.     (In  press)  Do.  Do.  I  50 

May  Agnes  Fleiuinj^'s  Novels. 

GUY  EARLESCOURT'S    WIFE $I    75  |  A   WONUKKFUL   WOMAN.  §1    75 

ITIaria  J.  Westmoreland's  Novels. 

HRART   HUNGRY §1    75  |  CLIFFORD   TROUP  /new) %X    75 

Sallle  A.  Brock's  Novels. 

KENNETH,   MY  KING $1    75  |  A   NEW   KOUK (in    preSS) 

Don    Ctnixote. 

A  BEAUTIFUL  NEW  1 2M0  EDITION.     With  illustrations  by  Gustave  Dore ^i  50 

Victor  Hugo. 

LEs  MI3ERABLES. — English  translation  from  the  French.     Octavo $2  50 

LES  MISERABLES. — In  the  Spanish  language 5  00 

Algernon  Cliarles  Svrinbnrne. 

LAUS  VENERIS,  AND  OTHER  POEAis. — An  elegant  new  edition $1  30 

FRENCH  LOVE-SONGS. — Selected  from  the  best  French  authors i  50 

Robert    Dale    Owen. 

THE    DEBATABLE    LAND $2    OO  |  THREADING  MV  WAY— Autobiography$I  50 

Guide  for  New  York  City. 

wood's  ILLUSTRATED  HAND-BOOK.— A  beautiful  pocket  volume $1  00 

Tlie  Game  of  Whist. 

POLE  ON  WHIST. — The  late  English  standard  work $i  oo 

Mansfield  T.  Walwortli's  Novels. 


STORMCLIFF ^I    75 

DELAPLAINE. I    75 

BEVERLY (new) I   75 


WARWICK f  I    75 

LULU I    75 

HOTSPUR I   75 

A  NEW  NOVEL (m  press) 

Motlier  Goose  Set  to  ITIusic, 

MOTHER  GOOSE  MELODIES. — With  muslc  for  singing,  and  illustrations $1  50 

Tales  from  tlie  Operas. 

THE  PLOTS  OF  POPULAR  OPERAS  in  the  form  of  stories $1  50 

M.  OT.  Pomeroy  "Brick." 

SENSE — (a  serious  book) $1  50  I  nonsense — (a  comic  book) $1  30 

GOLD-DUST  do I    50      BRICK-DUST       do I   50 

OUR   SATURDAY   NIGHTS I    50  |  LIFE  OF   M.    M   POMEROY I   50 

John  Esten  Cooke's  W^orks. 

FAIRFAX §1    SO  I   HAMMER    AND    RAPIER f  I    50 

HILT   TO    HILT I    50      OUT   OF    THE    FOAM I    50 

A  NEW  BOOK (in  press) | 

Josepli  Rodman  Drake. 

THE  CULPRIT  FAY. — ^Thc  well-known  faery  poem,  with  100  illustrations $2  00 

THE  CULPRIT  FAY.  Do.  superbly  bound  in  turkey  morocco. .    5  00 

Ricliard  B.  Kimball's  Works. 


WAS   HE   SUCCESSFUL? $1    75 

UNDERCURPJINTS   OF  WALL   STREET.     I    75 

SAINT  LEGER ■     75 

ROMANCE  OF   STUDENT    LIFE *    75 


LIFE    IN    SAN    DOMINGO $1  50 

HENRY    POWERS,    BANKER I  75 

TO-DAY 1  75 

EMiLiE (in  press) 


Autlior  "Neiv  Gospel  of  Peace." 

CHRONICLES  OF  GOTHA.M. — A  rich  modern  satire  (prjper  covers)  .    25  cts. 

THE  FALL  OF  MAN. — A  satire  on  the  Darwin  theory     do.  50  cts. 

Celia  E.  Gardner's  Novels. 

CTOLBN    WATERS $1    50  |  BROKEN   DREAMS fl   50 


G.   W.   CARLETON  &=  CO:S  PUBLICATIONS. 


WOMEN  AND  THEATRES. 


Olive    liOgan. 

And  other  miscellaneous  topics ^i  50 

Anna    Cora    MoAvatt. 

ITALIAN  LIFE  AND  LEGENDS $1    50  |  THE  CLERGYMAN'S  WIFE. — A   novel.  $1    75 

I>r.  Cunimings's  \l'^orks. 

THE  GREAT  TRIBULATION .$2    OO  I  THF    GREAT    CONSUMMATION ^2   CK) 

THE  GREAT  PREPARATION 2    OO  |  THE  SEVENTH  VIAL 2   OO 

Cecelia  Cleveland, 

THE  STORY  OF  A  SUMMER  ;    OR,  JOURNAL  LEAVES  FROM  CHAPPAQUA f  I   50 

I>r.  A.  Cazenave, 

THE  ART  OF  HUMAN  DECORATION.     Translated  from  the  French $i  50 

Samuel  T^'^ilberforce. 

LITTLE  WANDERERS.     Sunday  Stories  for  Children.     Illustrated %\  50 

"Bill    Arp." 

PEACE  PAPERS. — And  Other  sketches.     With  comic  illustrations %\  50 

Miscellaneous  Works. 

CHRISTMAS  HOLLY. -Marion  HarlandSi  50 
DREAM  MUSIC. — F.  R.  Marvin i  50 


BRAZEN  GATES. — A  juvenile $1  50 

ANTIDOTE    TO  GATES  AJAR 2$  CtS 

THE    RUSSIAN    BALL  (papCf) 25  CtS 

THE   SNOBLACE   BALL     do       25  CtS 

DEAFNESS. — Dr.  E.  B.  Lighthill...    i  oo 

A    BOOK    ABOUT   LAWYERS 2    OO 

A   BOOK   ABOUT    DOCTORS 2   CO 

SQUIBOB  PAPERS. — John  Phosnix. . .    i  50 
WIDOW  SPRIGGINS. — Widow  Bedott.    i  75 


POEMS. — By  L.  G.  Thomas i  50 

VICTOR  HUGO.  — His  life 2  00 

BEAUTY   IS    POWER 1    50 

WOMAN,    LOVE,    AND   MARRIAGE I    50 

WICKEDEST  WOMAN  in  Ncw  York.  25  CtS 
SANDWICHES. — By  Artemus  Ward..  25cts 
REGiNA. — Poems  by  Eliza  Cruger..    i  50 


Plynioutlj    Churcli,— Brooklyn, 

HISTORY  OF  THIS  CHURCH  ;  from  1847  to  1873. — Portraits  and  illustration $2  00 

Miscellaneous    Novels, 


LOYAL   UNTO    DEATH *I    75 

BESSIE  WILMERTON. WeStCOtt I    50 

PURPLE  AND  FINE  LINEN. FaWCCtt.     I    75 

EDMUND  DAWN. — By  Ravenswood .  i  50 
CACHET.— Mrs.  M.  J.  R.  Hamilton,  i  50 
THE  bishop's  SON.— Alice  Gary 1  75 

MARK  GILDERSLEEVE.-J.S.SaUzade     I    75 

FERNANDO  DE  LEMOS. — C.  Gayarcc  2  00 
CROWN  JEWELS.— Mrs.  Moffat I  75 

50 


A  LOST  LIFE. — By  Emily  Moore 
AVERY  GLiBUN. — Orpheus  C.  Kerr. 

THE  CLOVEN  FOOT. Do.  _ 

O.    C.    KERR    PAPERS. — 4  Vols.   in  I  . 
ROMANCE   OF   RAILROAD. Smith... 

GENESIS  DISCLOSED. — ^T.  A.  Davies. 


2   00 
I    50 


I    50 
I    50 


BOBERT  GRKATHOUSE. J.  F.    Swift.  2   OO 

FAUSTINA. — From  the  German i  50 

MAURICE. — From  the  French i  50 

GUSTAVH  ADOLF.— From  the  Swedish  i  50 

ADRIFT   WITH    A    VENGEANCE I    50 

UP  BROADWAY. — By  Eleanor  Kirk. .  i  50 


MONTALBAN I 

LIFE   AND    DEATH I 

CLAUDE  GUEUX. — By  Victor  Hugo.  i 
FOUR  OAKS. — By  Kamba  Thorpe. . .  1 
ADRIFT  IN  DIXIE. — Edmund  Kirke.    i 


AMONG    THE    GUERILLAS. 
AMONG   THE    PINES. 
MY    SOUTHERN    FRIENDS. 
DOWN    IN    TENNESSEE. 


Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 


.    I 


Miscellaneous    Works, 

A  BOOK  OF  EPITAPHS. — Amusing,  quaint,  and  curious (new) f  i  50 

SOUVENIRS  OF  TRAVEL. — By  Madame  Octavia  Walton  LeVert 2  00 

THE  ART  OF  AMUSING. — A  book  of  home  amuscments,  with  illustrations 1  50 

HOW  TO  MAKE  MONEY  ;  and  how  to  keep  it. — By  Thomas  A.  Davies i  50 

BALLAD  OF  LORD  BATEMAN. — With  Illustrations  by  Cruikshank  (paper) 25  cts 

BEHIND  THE  SCENES  ;  at  the  "  White  House." — By  Elizabeth  Keckley 2  00 

THE  yachtman's  PRIMER. — For  amateur  sailors.     T.  R.  Warren  (paper) 50  cts 

RURAL  ARCHITECTURE. — By  M.  Field.     With  plans  and  illustrations 2  00 

LIFE  OF. HORACE  GEEELEY. — By  L.  U.  Rcavis.     With  a  new  steel  Portrait 2  00 

WHAT  I  KNOW  OF  FARMING. — By  Horace  Greeley _ i  50 

PRACTICAL  TREATISE  ON  LABOR. — By  Hendrick  B.  Wright. 2  00 

TWELVE  VIEWS  OF  HEAVEN. — By  Twelve  Distinguished  English  Divines......    i  50 

HOUSES  NOT  MADE  WITH  HANDS. — An  illustrated  juvcnile,  illust'dby  Hoppin..    i  00 

CRUISE  OF  THE  SHENANDOAH — The  Last  Confederate  Steamer i  50 

MILITARY  RECORS  OF  CIVILIAN  APPOINTMENTS  in  the  U.  S.  Army 5  00 

IMPENDING  CRISIS  OF  THE  SOUTH. — By  Hinton  Rowan  Helper 2  00 

NEGROES  IN  NEGROLAND.  Do.        Do.  Do.  (paper  covers) .    I  00 


CHARLES  DICKENS'  WORKS. 


A  IVcw  Edition. 

Among  the  numerous  cclilions  of  the  works  of  this  greatest  of  Eng- 
lish Novelists,  there  has  not  been  until  now  one  that  entirely  satisfies  the 

public  demand Without  exception,  they  each  have  some 

strong  distinctive  objection,  .  .  .  either  the  shape  and  dimensions 
of  the  volumes  are  unhand|f — or,  the  type  is  small  and  indistinct-  or, 
the  paper  is  tlun  and  poor — or,  the  illustrations  [if  they  have  any]  are 
unsatisfactory — or,  the  binding  is  bad — or,  the  price  is  too  high. 

A  new  edition  is  ilow^  however,  published  by  G.  W.  Carleton  &  Co. 
of  New  York,  which,  it  is  believed,  will,  in  every  respect,  completely 
satisfy  the  popular  demand.     .     .     .     It  is  known  as 

"Carletoji's  IVcw  Illu§tratcd  Edition." 

The  size  and  form  is  most  convenient  for  holding,  .  .  the  type  is 
entirely  new,  and  of  a  clear  and  open  character  that  has  received  the 
approval  of  the  reading  community  m  other  popular  works. 

The  illustrations  are  by  the  original  artists  chosen  by  Charles 
Dickens  himself  .  .  .  and  the  paper,  printing,  and  bmding  are 
of  the  most  attractive  and  substantial  character. 

Th»^  publication  of  this  beautiful  new  edition  was  commenced  in 
April,  1873,  and  will  be  completed  in  20  volumes — one  novel  each 
month — at  the  extremely  reasonable  price  of  $1.50  per  volume,  as 
follows : — 


I — THE  PICKWICK  PAPERS. 
2 — OLIVER  TWIST. 
3 — DAVID  COPPERFIELD. 
4 — GREAT  EXPECTATIONS. 
5 — DOMBEY  AND  SON. 
6 — BARNABY  RUDGE. 
7 — NICHOLAS  NICKLEBY. 
8 — OLD  CURIOSITY  SHOP. 
9 — BLEAK  HOUSE. 
ID — LITTLE  DORRIT. 


1 1 — MARTIN  CHUZZLEWIT. 

12 — OUR  MUTUAL  FRIEND. 

13 — TALE  OF  TWO  CITIES. 

14 — CHRISTMAS  BOOKS. 

15 — SKETCHES  BY  "BOZ." 

16 — HARD  TIMES,  ETC. 

17 — PICTURES  OF  ITALY,  ETC. 

18 — UNCOMMERCIAL  TRAVELLER. 

19 — EDWIN  DROOD,  ETC. 

20 — MISCELi.  \NIES. 


Being  issued,  month  by  month,  at  so  reasonable  a  price,  those  who 
begin  by  subscribing  for  this  work,  will  imperceptibly  soon  find  them- 
selves fortunate  )wners  of  an  entire  set  of  this  best  edition  of  Dickens' 
Works^  almost  ^\  ithout  havmg  paid  for  it. 

A  Prospectus  furnishing  specimen  of  type,  sized-page,  and  illustra- 
tions, will  be  sent  to  any  onQfree  on  application — and  specimen  copies 
of  the  bound  books  will  be  forwarded  by  mail,  postage  free  ^  on  receipt 
of  price,  $1.50,  by 

G.  W.  Carleton  &  Co.,  Publishers, 

Madiiion  Square,  New  York. 


THREE    VALUABLE    BOOKS, 

All  Beautifully  Printed  and  Elegantly  Bound. 
♦ 

I.— Tlie  Art  of  CoiiversatioM, 

With  Directions  ^or  Self-Culture.  An  admirably  conceiv*ed  and  entertaining 
work — sensible,  instructive,  and  full  of  suggestions  valuable  to  every  one  wlio 
desii-es  to  be  either  a  good  taUier  or  listener,  or  who  wishes  to  appear  to  advan- 
tage in  good  society.  Every  young  and  even  old  person  should  read  it,  study  it 
over  and  over  again,  and  follow  those  hints  in  it  which  lead  them  to  break  iip 


bad  habits  and  cultivate  good  ones. 
be  found  chapters  upon — 
Attention  in  Conveesation.— Sat- 
ire.—Puns.— Sarcasm. —  Teasing. — 
C  ENSURE.  —  Fault-Finding.— Egot- 
ism.— PoiiiTENESs. — Compliments. — 
Stories.-Anecdotes.-Questioning. 
-Liberties.— Impudence.-- Staring. 
—Disagreeable    Subjects.  —  Sel- 


;*  Price  $1.50.    Among  the  contents  will 

FisHNESs. — Argument.— Sacrifices. 
—Silent  People, — Dinner  Con- 
VERSATioN.- Timidity.- Its  Cure. — 
Modesty. — Correct  Language. — 
Self-Instruction.—Miscellaneous 
Knowledge.— Languages. 


II.— The  Habits  of  C^oocl  Society. 

A  Handbook  for  Ladies  and  Gentlemen.  With  thoughts,  hints,  and  anecdotes 
concerning  social  observances,  nice  points  of  taste  and  good  manners,  and  the 
art  of  making  oneself  agreeable.  The  whole  interspersed  with  humorous  illus- 
trationa  of  social  predicaments,  remarks  on  fashion,  etc.  *;,:*  Price  $1.75. 
Among  the  contents  will  be  found  chapters  upon — 


Gentlemen's  Preface. 

Ladies'  Preface. — Fashions. 

Thoughts  on  Society. 

Good  Society.— Bad  Society. 

The  Dressing-Eoom. 

The  Ladies'  Toilet.— Dress. 

Feminine  Accomplishments. 

Manners  and  Habits. 

Public  and  Private  Etiquette. 

Married  and  Unmarried  Ladies. 

Do  do    Gentlemen. 

Calling  Etiquette.— Cards. 
Visiting  Etiquette.— Dinners. 
Dinner  Parties. 


Ladies  at  Dinner. 
Dinner  Habits. — Carving. 
Manners  at  Supper. — Balls. 
Morning  Parties.— Picnics. 
Evening  Parties. — Dances. 
Private  Theatricals. 
Receptions.— Engagements. 
Marriage  Cerebionies, 
Invitations. — Dresses. 
Bridesmaids. —Presents. 
Travelling  Etiquette. 
Public  Promenade. 
Country  Visits. — City  Visits. 


III.— Art§  of  Writing,  Reading,  and  Speaking. 

An  exceedingly  fascinating  work  for  teaching  not  only  the  beginner,  but  for 
perfecting  every  one  in  these  three  most  desirable  accomplishments.  For  youth 
this  book  's  both  interesting  and  valuable  ;  and  for  adults,  whether  professionally 
or  socially,  it  is  a  book  that  they  cannot  dispense  vv'ith.  *^*  Price  $1.50.  Among 
the  contenis  will  be  found  chapters  upon — 
Reading  &  Thinking.— L.vnguagI:.— 
Words,  SEN.rENCES,  &  Construction. 
What  to  Avcld. — Letter  Writing.— 
Pronunciation.— Expression. — Tone 
Religious  Readings.— The  Bible. — 
Prayers.— Dramatic  Readings.— The 
Actor  &  Reader.— Foundations  for 
Oratory    and  Speaking. — What  to 

These  works  are  the  most  perfect  of  their  l-ind  ever  puhli^hed ;  fresh,  sensible 
{joocl-hiimored.  entertaining,  and  readable.  Every  xx^rnon  of  taste  should  pos- 
sess them,  and  cannot  be  otherwise  than  delighted  with  them. 

5f^^  A  beautiful  new  minature  edition  of  these  very  popular  books  has  just 
been  published,  entitled  "The  Diamond  Edition,"  three  little  vohmies.  ele- 
gantly printed  on  tinted  paper,  an<J  handsomely  bound  in  a  box.     Price  $3.00. 

*^*  These  books  are  all  sent  by  mail,  postage  free,  on  receipt  of  price,  by 

Q.  W.  CAELETON  ^  CO.,  PulDlishers,  Madison  Square,  New  York. 


Sat.— What  not  to  Say. — How  to 
Begin.-  Cautions.-Delivery.  -Writ- 
ing A  Speech. — First  Lessons. — Pub- 
lic Speaking.— Delivery.-  Action. 
Oratory  of  the  Pulpit.— Cojiposi- 
tion. — The  Bar. — Reading  of  "Wit  & 
Humor. — The  Platform. — Construc- 
tion of  a  Speech. 


.,ca,  Sem,na,,-Speer  t.'brar. 


™'7^T2  010153254 


